Scientific proof that God exists?

[vit1988]

One simple way to show how ridiculous the idea of evolution is, is through scientifically recognizing how many atoms make up the smallest possible living cell. Then add in the part where these atoms must all be situated in the right place. Then throw in the part about how the atoms must be kick-started into motion, all at exactly the right time, in the right direction. Now, compare this with the mathematical laws of probability while including entropy, and you can see that life through some form of evolution is more difficult than winning all the lotteries in the world, past, present, and future, all at the same time.

Probability calculation does not say that something is impossible because of its low probability. Even something with a unimaginable low probability can happen and when considering a infinite time frame and number of tries for something to happen the probability approximates to 100%.

[Decksperiment]

Ffs, someone bring in some old/new/unmentioned religion that DOES'NT involve anything connected to christians or jews.. please reference something we can get our teeth into that we have'nt heard on our own doorstep before we slammed the door..

[nakazznicek]

Ffs, someone bring in some old/new/unmentioned religion that DOES'NT involve anything connected to christians or jews.. please reference something we can get our teeth into that we have'nt heard on our own doorstep before we slammed the door..

[Decksperiment]

pmsl...

[Cortex7]

Ffs, someone bring in some old/new/unmentioned religion that DOES'NT involve anything connected to christians or jews.. please reference something we can get our teeth into that we have'nt heard on our own doorstep before we slammed the door..

scuba preacher: "can I at least leave you a leaflet?"

octopus: "Only if I can eat it, otherwise it's ink time!"

[Vod]

I don't understand why a god would give me a brain then send me to hell just for using it.   

[BADecker]

I don't understand why a god would give me a brain then send me to hell just for using it.   

Actually, Vod is quite intelligent. Don't let him (her?) kid you.

Something inanimate will never come to life.

You'll watch it on TV within the next 10 years.

Science is going to allow us to do things your gods never could.  7 days to create a world? 
Within the next century, we will be doing it in 7 minutes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsr-XtuKuSw

Vod has just proven the existence of God.

Back in the 1960's or 1970s, I think it was, scientists made life in a test tube. Or at least that is what they tried to say. If they didn't actually make life, they came really close. They probably have done it over and over since then. I don't follow it.

What these scientists did (do?) was/is, they got together all kinds of apparatus, labratory apparatus, equipment that all kinds of inventors and engineers invented and built. Then they formulated methods to get some chemicals into a test tube, at just the right temperature, with all the right conditions. Then they zapped it all with some electricity, and they got something that approximated life.

When we look around in nature, there is life all over the place. It is complex life, of many kinds, and usually in large quantities of each kind. All of it is far advanced in form than the simple, test-tube life that scientists created back in the '70s.

So, you can see how this proves God, can't you? Intelligent man works hard and creates simple, lowly life. The far more complex, much more abundant and far better operating life has been created by a Being Who is as much greater than man as His created life is greater than man's created life. He is the Almighty God.

What is really wonderful is that God made man so well that man is actually starting to emulate God!

[jackjack]

I don't understand why a god would give me a brain then send me to hell just for using it.   

Actually, Vod is quite intelligent. Don't let him (her?) kid you.

Something inanimate will never come to life.

You'll watch it on TV within the next 10 years.

Science is going to allow us to do things your gods never could.  7 days to create a world? 
Within the next century, we will be doing it in 7 minutes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsr-XtuKuSw

Vod has just proven the existence of God.

Back in the 1960's or 1970s, I think it was, scientists made life in a test tube. Or at least that is what they tried to say. If they didn't actually make life, they came really close. They probably have done it over and over since then. I don't follow it.

What these scientists did (do?) was/is, they got together all kinds of apparatus, labratory apparatus, equipment that all kinds of inventors and engineers invented and built. Then they formulated methods to get some chemicals into a test tube, at just the right temperature, with all the right conditions. Then they zapped it all with some electricity, and they got something that approximated life.

When we look around in nature, there is life all over the place. It is complex life, of many kinds, and usually in large quantities of each kind. All of it is far advanced in form than the simple, test-tube life that scientists created back in the '70s.

So, you can see how this proves God, can't you? Intelligent man works hard and creates simple, lowly life. The far more complex, much more abundant and far better operating life has been created by a Being Who is as much greater than man as His created life is greater than man's created life. He is the Almighty God.

What is really wonderful is that God made man so well that man is actually starting to emulate God!

You think that we created life back in the 60s but you don't see how this proves there's no god needed to create life?
The life created back then would have spread and colonize the entire earth
Then because of radioactivity, dna errors, etc genes muted, which leave 2 possibilities: either the mutated guy is less robust and dies before spreading its genes, or it's more robust and spread its genes and could lead to a new specie (which can be more complex than the one before)

[BADecker]

I don't understand why a god would give me a brain then send me to hell just for using it.   

Actually, Vod is quite intelligent. Don't let him (her?) kid you.

Something inanimate will never come to life.

You'll watch it on TV within the next 10 years.

Science is going to allow us to do things your gods never could.  7 days to create a world? 
Within the next century, we will be doing it in 7 minutes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsr-XtuKuSw

Vod has just proven the existence of God.

Back in the 1960's or 1970s, I think it was, scientists made life in a test tube. Or at least that is what they tried to say. If they didn't actually make life, they came really close. They probably have done it over and over since then. I don't follow it.

What these scientists did (do?) was/is, they got together all kinds of apparatus, labratory apparatus, equipment that all kinds of inventors and engineers invented and built. Then they formulated methods to get some chemicals into a test tube, at just the right temperature, with all the right conditions. Then they zapped it all with some electricity, and they got something that approximated life.

When we look around in nature, there is life all over the place. It is complex life, of many kinds, and usually in large quantities of each kind. All of it is far advanced in form than the simple, test-tube life that scientists created back in the '70s.

So, you can see how this proves God, can't you? Intelligent man works hard and creates simple, lowly life. The far more complex, much more abundant and far better operating life has been created by a Being Who is as much greater than man as His created life is greater than man's created life. He is the Almighty God.

What is really wonderful is that God made man so well that man is actually starting to emulate God!

You think that we created life back in the 60s but you don't see how this proves there's no god needed to create life?
The life created back then would have spread and colonize the entire earth
Then because of radioactivity, dna errors, etc genes muted, which leave 2 possibilities: either the mutated guy is less robust and dies before spreading its genes, or it's more robust and spread its genes and could lead to a new specie (which can be more complex than the one before)

Now, now. You are clouding the issue.

1. We see nothing in nature that is able to create life. If we easily saw the creator of life, scientists would have proclaimed it long ago. Rather, they only have a theory called evolution.

2. We DO see a creator of near life. It is man, himself, who created a lowly form of test-tube life, that probably wasn't really life, but only something that was almost life.

3. Since it has taken much knowledge and effort by man to create something that is almost life (maybe it was life), how much greater is the Creator of true life that exists all around us in nature, in abundance, and is the thing that even makes us the life that we are?

4. Such a Thing that is so extremely knowledgeable and capable as to be able to be the Creator of the REAL life that exists all around us is the Thing that fits our definition of the word "God."

After all, if it takes all man's ingenuity to barely create life or something that simulates life, REAL life must be something that is very difficult to create. We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident. Rather we see just the opposite; randomness produces disorder. By comparing man's creation against life that exists in nature, we can easily see that the Creator of the life in nature is Great, beyond our knowledge and understanding.

[jackjack]

Now, now. You are clouding the issue.

1. We see nothing in nature that is able to create life. If we easily saw the creator of life, scientists would have proclaimed it long ago. Rather, they only have a theory called evolution.

2. We DO see a creator of near life. It is man, himself, who created a lowly form of test-tube life, that probably wasn't really life, but only something that was almost life.

3. Since it has taken much knowledge and effort by man to create something that is almost life (maybe it was life), how much greater is the Creator of true life that exists all around us in nature, in abundance, and is the thing that even makes us the life that we are?

4. Such a Thing that is so extremely knowledgeable and capable as to be able to be the Creator of the REAL life that exists all around us is the Thing that fits our definition of the word "God."

After all, if it takes all man's ingenuity to barely create life or something that simulates life, REAL life must be something that is very difficult to create. We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident. Rather we see just the opposite; randomness produces disorder. By comparing man's creation against life that exists in nature, we can easily see that the Creator of the life in nature is Great, beyond our knowledge and understanding.

3. Much knowledge? We did it but we didn't know how and why it worked! The conditions we used intentionally occurs naturally really often, they don't need any knowledge at all to exist.

We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident.

Well, I don't say it often occurs. I just say it did occur at least once in 14 billion years.

randomness produces disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[BADecker]

Now, now. You are clouding the issue.

1. We see nothing in nature that is able to create life. If we easily saw the creator of life, scientists would have proclaimed it long ago. Rather, they only have a theory called evolution.

2. We DO see a creator of near life. It is man, himself, who created a lowly form of test-tube life, that probably wasn't really life, but only something that was almost life.

3. Since it has taken much knowledge and effort by man to create something that is almost life (maybe it was life), how much greater is the Creator of true life that exists all around us in nature, in abundance, and is the thing that even makes us the life that we are?

4. Such a Thing that is so extremely knowledgeable and capable as to be able to be the Creator of the REAL life that exists all around us is the Thing that fits our definition of the word "God."

After all, if it takes all man's ingenuity to barely create life or something that simulates life, REAL life must be something that is very difficult to create. We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident. Rather we see just the opposite; randomness produces disorder. By comparing man's creation against life that exists in nature, we can easily see that the Creator of the life in nature is Great, beyond our knowledge and understanding.

3. Much knowledge? We did it but we didn't know how and why it worked! The conditions we used intentionally occurs naturally really often, they don't need any knowledge at all to exist.

That's right. The conditions occur in nature. The thing we are trying to figure out is how they occur in nature. We don't see the coming-together of the conditions in nature. We only see that they HAVE come together, and that they work. By bringing them together in a test tube, we were able to see that it takes great intelligence to bring the things together, even in simple form. How much greater, therefore, must be the intelligence that brought the things together in nature? That is what God is like. Highly intelligent and capable beyond understanding.

We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident.

Well, I don't say it often occurs. I just say it did occur at least once in 14 billion years.

Well, it is fun to say it. But the evidence listed above shows that the reality is exactly the opposite.

randomness produces disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

As in, based in suppositions.

[Velkro]

God is god, is it catholic god? Is this muslim god? Yehova vitness god? There is absolutely no problem with that, because there is none

[BADecker]

God is god, is it catholic god? Is this muslim god? Yehova vitness god? There is absolutely no problem with that, because there is none

Yet, God is not an idol, unless the idol happens to be God, that is.

So, how do we distinguish where the dividing line is? I mean, if I say God is a redhead, and you say that God is a blonde, and that is the only difference we have about God, we probably both are talking about the same God, only we have a difference of understanding, or one or both of us have a misunderstanding. God might have brown hair.

However, if I say God is a lizard, and you say God is a bear, and someone else says God is the sun, and yet another person says that God is simply a spirit, maybe we are talking about different gods here.

[jackjack]

Now, now. You are clouding the issue.

1. We see nothing in nature that is able to create life. If we easily saw the creator of life, scientists would have proclaimed it long ago. Rather, they only have a theory called evolution.

2. We DO see a creator of near life. It is man, himself, who created a lowly form of test-tube life, that probably wasn't really life, but only something that was almost life.

3. Since it has taken much knowledge and effort by man to create something that is almost life (maybe it was life), how much greater is the Creator of true life that exists all around us in nature, in abundance, and is the thing that even makes us the life that we are?

4. Such a Thing that is so extremely knowledgeable and capable as to be able to be the Creator of the REAL life that exists all around us is the Thing that fits our definition of the word "God."

After all, if it takes all man's ingenuity to barely create life or something that simulates life, REAL life must be something that is very difficult to create. We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident. Rather we see just the opposite; randomness produces disorder. By comparing man's creation against life that exists in nature, we can easily see that the Creator of the life in nature is Great, beyond our knowledge and understanding.

3. Much knowledge? We did it but we didn't know how and why it worked! The conditions we used intentionally occurs naturally really often, they don't need any knowledge at all to exist.

That's right. The conditions occur in nature. The thing we are trying to figure out is how they occur in nature. We don't see the coming-together of the conditions in nature. We only see that they HAVE come together, and that they work. By bringing them together in a test tube, we were able to see that it takes great intelligence to bring the things together, even in simple form. How much greater, therefore, must be the intelligence that brought the things together in nature? That is what God is like. Highly intelligent and capable beyond understanding.

We don't see any process whereby life comes about by accident.

Well, I don't say it often occurs. I just say it did occur at least once in 14 billion years.

Well, it is fun to say it. But the evidence listed above shows that the reality is exactly the opposite.

randomness produces disorder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

As in, based in suppositions.

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

[BADecker]

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

Eternity and infinity are gigantic terms. Their in-depth understanding is mostly outside of our understanding.

Nature around us suggests only beginning and ending. Such things as infinity and eternity are not clearly indicated in nature. Everything has a beginning, especially the life of plants and animals, and people. These also have an ending. No infinity and eternity.

While the cosmos is gigantic, both in the macro and the micro, we are uncertain about its continuation in either direction. We are simply too limited in our ability to observe these things at present.

Parallel Universes. Quantum mechanics suggests that for each correct solution to a puzzle (answer to a question), there are an infinite number of incorrect solutions. What's interesting is that the reverse is true in quantum mechanics as well. For each incorrect solution to a puzzle, there are an infinite number of correct answers. This is mind boggling. It also suggests that modern advancements exist simply because we believe that they exist, not because they are scientific facts. Think about it.

Consider pure randomness. Virtually ALL science is based on cause and effect, action and reaction. All scientists are trained to look at what exists, and find out more, based on what they have seen that exists already. Because of this, scientists show that there is really no probability; pure randomness doesn't seem to exist, because everything that they learn is based on cause and effect. Although we use randomness daily throughout our lives, pure randomness is so extremely abstract that we almost can't conceive of it. Only Buddhists and Hindus talk about emptying themselves in meditation. Is this where religion borders on science?

The point is, if we ever get to the point that we can start to "see" everything that exists, we just might find that there IS a beginning and end, to all of it. But what we will probably also find is that the way we fit into the universe produces in us a seeming eternal and infinite existence, at least while we are conscious.

[jackjack]

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

Eternity and infinity are gigantic terms. Their in-depth understanding is mostly outside of our understanding.

Nature around us suggests only beginning and ending. Such things as infinity and eternity are not clearly indicated in nature. Everything has a beginning, especially the life of plants and animals, and people. These also have an ending. No infinity and eternity.

While the cosmos is gigantic, both in the macro and the micro, we are uncertain about its continuation in either direction. We are simply too limited in our ability to observe these things at present.

Parallel Universes. Quantum mechanics suggests that for each correct solution to a puzzle (answer to a question), there are an infinite number of incorrect solutions. What's interesting is that the reverse is true in quantum mechanics as well. For each incorrect solution to a puzzle, there are an infinite number of correct answers. This is mind boggling. It also suggests that modern advancements exist simply because we believe that they exist, not because they are scientific facts. Think about it.

Consider pure randomness. Virtually ALL science is based on cause and effect, action and reaction. All scientists are trained to look at what exists, and find out more, based on what they have seen that exists already. Because of this, scientists show that there is really no probability; pure randomness doesn't seem to exist, because everything that they learn is based on cause and effect. Although we use randomness daily throughout our lives, pure randomness is so extremely abstract that we almost can't conceive of it. Only Buddhists and Hindus talk about emptying themselves in meditation. Is this where religion borders on science?

The point is, if we ever get to the point that we can start to "see" everything that exists, we just might find that there IS a beginning and end, to all of it. But what we will probably also find is that the way we fit into the universe produces in us a seeming eternal and infinite existence, at least while we are conscious.

Wow giga off-topic.
I didn't mention anything about infinity. And even the monkey page doesn't talk about infinity.

The point is that there are (1000 billions)^2 = 100000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. The probability of having the conditions applied in the 70s in at least one of planet around one of them is rather high IMO.

[Alex1990]

Just read what George Kavassilas has to say maan  I recommend

[BADecker]

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

Eternity and infinity are gigantic terms. Their in-depth understanding is mostly outside of our understanding.

Nature around us suggests only beginning and ending. Such things as infinity and eternity are not clearly indicated in nature. Everything has a beginning, especially the life of plants and animals, and people. These also have an ending. No infinity and eternity.

While the cosmos is gigantic, both in the macro and the micro, we are uncertain about its continuation in either direction. We are simply too limited in our ability to observe these things at present.

Parallel Universes. Quantum mechanics suggests that for each correct solution to a puzzle (answer to a question), there are an infinite number of incorrect solutions. What's interesting is that the reverse is true in quantum mechanics as well. For each incorrect solution to a puzzle, there are an infinite number of correct answers. This is mind boggling. It also suggests that modern advancements exist simply because we believe that they exist, not because they are scientific facts. Think about it.

Consider pure randomness. Virtually ALL science is based on cause and effect, action and reaction. All scientists are trained to look at what exists, and find out more, based on what they have seen that exists already. Because of this, scientists show that there is really no probability; pure randomness doesn't seem to exist, because everything that they learn is based on cause and effect. Although we use randomness daily throughout our lives, pure randomness is so extremely abstract that we almost can't conceive of it. Only Buddhists and Hindus talk about emptying themselves in meditation. Is this where religion borders on science?

The point is, if we ever get to the point that we can start to "see" everything that exists, we just might find that there IS a beginning and end, to all of it. But what we will probably also find is that the way we fit into the universe produces in us a seeming eternal and infinite existence, at least while we are conscious.

Wow giga off-topic.
I didn't mention anything about infinity. And even the monkey page doesn't talk about infinity.

The point is that there are (1000 billions)^2 = 100000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. The probability of having the conditions applied in the 70s in at least one of planet around one of them is rather high IMO.

Sorry. Me bad for assuming that you were, in part, talking about infinity when you mentioned a webpage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem - that has as one of its basic premises the idea of an infinite amount of time. And, in real life, it seems that you almost have to have eternity for an infinite amount of time to exist. Sorry.

[BADecker]

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

Eternity and infinity are gigantic terms. Their in-depth understanding is mostly outside of our understanding.

Nature around us suggests only beginning and ending. Such things as infinity and eternity are not clearly indicated in nature. Everything has a beginning, especially the life of plants and animals, and people. These also have an ending. No infinity and eternity.

While the cosmos is gigantic, both in the macro and the micro, we are uncertain about its continuation in either direction. We are simply too limited in our ability to observe these things at present.

Parallel Universes. Quantum mechanics suggests that for each correct solution to a puzzle (answer to a question), there are an infinite number of incorrect solutions. What's interesting is that the reverse is true in quantum mechanics as well. For each incorrect solution to a puzzle, there are an infinite number of correct answers. This is mind boggling. It also suggests that modern advancements exist simply because we believe that they exist, not because they are scientific facts. Think about it.

Consider pure randomness. Virtually ALL science is based on cause and effect, action and reaction. All scientists are trained to look at what exists, and find out more, based on what they have seen that exists already. Because of this, scientists show that there is really no probability; pure randomness doesn't seem to exist, because everything that they learn is based on cause and effect. Although we use randomness daily throughout our lives, pure randomness is so extremely abstract that we almost can't conceive of it. Only Buddhists and Hindus talk about emptying themselves in meditation. Is this where religion borders on science?

The point is, if we ever get to the point that we can start to "see" everything that exists, we just might find that there IS a beginning and end, to all of it. But what we will probably also find is that the way we fit into the universe produces in us a seeming eternal and infinite existence, at least while we are conscious.

The point is that there are (1000 billions)^2 = 100000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. The probability of having the conditions applied in the 70s in at least one of planet around one of them is rather high IMO.

Why would you think that such a large number of stars and planets has anything to do with greater odds that certain improbable conditions exist? Those stars/planets are part of our universe. The same probability exists there as here. In fact, the probability of being able to house life on multitudes of them is far less than here, because the kind of star we have, and the position the earth holds around that star, are very favorable for life. Most of those others don't even have that.

[Gimpeline]

With thousands of billions of galaxies, each containing thousands of billions of stars, the probability of finding the conditions we made then seems quite high.

And I'd prefer not I'd like to avoid play on words. I don't care about the name, did you actually read the page. At least a part of it?

Eternity and infinity are gigantic terms. Their in-depth understanding is mostly outside of our understanding.

Nature around us suggests only beginning and ending. Such things as infinity and eternity are not clearly indicated in nature. Everything has a beginning, especially the life of plants and animals, and people. These also have an ending. No infinity and eternity.

While the cosmos is gigantic, both in the macro and the micro, we are uncertain about its continuation in either direction. We are simply too limited in our ability to observe these things at present.

Parallel Universes. Quantum mechanics suggests that for each correct solution to a puzzle (answer to a question), there are an infinite number of incorrect solutions. What's interesting is that the reverse is true in quantum mechanics as well. For each incorrect solution to a puzzle, there are an infinite number of correct answers. This is mind boggling. It also suggests that modern advancements exist simply because we believe that they exist, not because they are scientific facts. Think about it.

Consider pure randomness. Virtually ALL science is based on cause and effect, action and reaction. All scientists are trained to look at what exists, and find out more, based on what they have seen that exists already. Because of this, scientists show that there is really no probability; pure randomness doesn't seem to exist, because everything that they learn is based on cause and effect. Although we use randomness daily throughout our lives, pure randomness is so extremely abstract that we almost can't conceive of it. Only Buddhists and Hindus talk about emptying themselves in meditation. Is this where religion borders on science?

The point is, if we ever get to the point that we can start to "see" everything that exists, we just might find that there IS a beginning and end, to all of it. But what we will probably also find is that the way we fit into the universe produces in us a seeming eternal and infinite existence, at least while we are conscious.

Wow giga off-topic.
I didn't mention anything about infinity. And even the monkey page doesn't talk about infinity.

The point is that there are (1000 billions)^2 = 100000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe. The probability of having the conditions applied in the 70s in at least one of planet around one of them is rather high IMO.

Sorry. Me bad for assuming that you were, in part, talking about infinity when you mentioned a webpage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem - that has as one of its basic premises the idea of an infinite amount of time. And, in real life, it seems that you almost have to have eternity for an infinite amount of time to exist. Sorry.

I have to ask. Do you know what the theory of evolution is? It almost sounds like you think its some kind of random pick from the tree of life.
Or that guy. ( dont remember his name) that was worried about going around for millions of years waiting to evolve a mouth so he could eat.
Thre is nothing random about evolution.
You dont have to go thru every single configuration to get to your goal like that monkey in the link

Edit: Sorry I rememberd wrong. It wasnt a mouth. It was going to the toilet. Here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Lt5ClxG5Q