Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

[1714936369]

1714936369

[1714936369]

1714936369

[Vod]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

[BADecker]

As long as "God" remains in the realm of the supernatural, ie, the unobservable, there will never be scientific proof that he/she/it exists by definition.  Science, by definition, is about building and testing hypothesis based on repeatable, observable experimentation.  Anyone who expects to find scientific proof for "God" either has a non-traditional view of "God" (ie God is not supernatural) or else has a mistaken view of science.

Yet there are many things that are common now, that 200 years ago would have been CALLED supernatural.

I would say that regarding things in this universe, nothing is supernatural. Some things only appear that way, and will until we find the technology to control them.

It sounds like you're saying you don't believe in a supernatural.  Which, as far as I can tell, means that you don't believe in a supernatural God.  I think that's a totally respectable belief system.

Look at what God said in Genesis, during the time that the people were building the Tower of Babel: "The LORD said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.'"

Probably reaching right into Heaven is something that people could do if they all joined together and put their minds to it. So, is there really supernatural? Or is it a word that is used to cover a certain form of ignorance that we have?

Lol, I guess by "what God said in Genesis" you're referring to what the J-writer or the P-writer said in Genesis.  

Anyway, if youre version of God is a natural phenomenon tied to predictable observation then haven't you taken away his/her/its Godness?

As far as reaching into heaven: Yuri Gagarin is usually the first credited with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin).

Don't limit yourself. Envision what it would be like for people to work together toward the goal of reaching right into the "supernatural."

[BADecker]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

[Vod]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

[tspacepilot]

Don't limit yourself. Envision what it would be like for people to work together toward the goal of reaching right into the "supernatural."

Well, that's difficult for me because in my own belief system I consider "supernatural" to be a synonym of "imaginary".

As far as what people can work together to achieve, I have no idea and I'd be pretentious to pretend I did.  I suppose that acutely it has a lot to do with whether or not our species kills ourselves off with nuclear weapons or too much carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere.

[BADecker]

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

What's interesting is that some of the smaller subatomic particles are showing far less "particle" action, far greater "wave" action, and something else that hasn't been defined, yet. It's my guess that the "something else" has to do with consciousness.

[BADecker]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.

[tspacepilot]

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

What's interesting is that some of the smaller subatomic particles are showing far less "particle" action, far greater "wave" action, and something else that hasn't been defined, yet. It's my guess that the "something else" has to do with consciousness.

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

[BADecker]

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

What's interesting is that some of the smaller subatomic particles are showing far less "particle" action, far greater "wave" action, and something else that hasn't been defined, yet. It's my guess that the "something else" has to do with consciousness.

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

Thank you.   

[bl4kjaguar]

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

Mainstream scientific consensus is not powerful enough to explain the evidence for survival:

Here is one example of high-quality evidence of the survival of the personality:

Dr. James Hyslop, professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia University, and one of the most distinguished American psychical researchers, reported the following incident.

[...]

As Sir Wiliam Barrett concluded in his review of the case: "The simplest and most reasonable solution is that the information was derived from the mind of the deceased person."

2 page PDF:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf

Is mainstream science going to give us any information at all on this subject? I challenge you to explain the evidence using consensus theories.

Without timely response, it is affirmed that empirical science CANNOT explain everything.

[bl4kjaguar]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

[frankenmint]

God exists - in your head only.

People 'need' God or a type of 'relation to something greater' to fill in a type of emotional void they are experiencing - they do it to justify that 'their loved ones' aren't gone and that 'we must certainly see them again too when we die!', which is naive and gullible - your personality and traits are predetermined from your environment and your genetic material - ergo you come back every century or so, and for that matter you aren't completely YOU, you're just a reset consciousness that is turned back on through the process of meiosis    

Stop attributing favorable events and circumstances of chance to being a miracle - cause you talking out loud to  yourself while holding your hands to a multidimensional being really solves everything.... right???


concept of reincarnation is true
concept of greater beings 'watching over us' without showing or giving any evidence of their own efforts toward self preservation is false


Entrophy = wins
Equilibrium = wins

Thus, Omnipresence implies that God is simply all forms of matter and lack thereof
Thus, Omnipotence implies that God cannot exist because then said God also has all knowledge of outcomes from not being present.  

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.

Science can explain everything.  Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented.  Soon, science will explain everything.

Mainstream scientific consensus is not powerful enough to explain the evidence for survival:

Here is one example of high-quality evidence of the survival of the personality:

Dr. James Hyslop, professor of Logic and Ethics at Columbia University, and one of the most distinguished American psychical researchers, reported the following incident.

[...]

As Sir Wiliam Barrett concluded in his review of the case: "The simplest and most reasonable solution is that the information was derived from the mind of the deceased person."

2 page PDF:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_51-75/case56_soule-soul.pdf

Is mainstream science going to give us any information at all on this subject? I challenge you to explain the evidence using consensus theories.

Without timely response, it is affirmed that empirical science CANNOT explain everything.

Serendipitous results without a clearly defined experiment and control group - and this is based on the efforts of one guy, I mean he could have flubbed his findings to make his experiment seem bigger than it was (reality was inconclusive and he lied saying they were correlated)  (I'm really going out on a limb with this guess as I didn't bother reading the PDF yet)  Will give feedback on it soon.

[bl4kjaguar]

You just posted that to fill in a type of emotional void you are experiencing.

[frankenmint]

You just posted that to fill in a type of emotional void you are experiencing.

And That is an ad-hominem attack, anything else?

Update: That guy was a total loon, and has been reincarnated as Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, seriously.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Barrett)

[bl4kjaguar]

People 'need' God or a type of 'relation to something greater' to fill in a type of emotional void they are experiencing - they do it to justify

It is your ad-hominem; you justify yours first. 

[username18333]

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

[jackjack]

On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:

The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.

Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.

The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.

You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science.  Don't you understand that?  Your house is built on a foundation of cards.

You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.

Doesn't change the point I just made.  Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot.  Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.

I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.

 

You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.

How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book?
The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.

[tspacepilot]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

[jackjack]

That's a cute guess.  And guesses aren't bad things.  But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly