Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

[1715634400]

1715634400

[1715634400]

1715634400

[Decksperiment]

We will never act as one. And if we ever do, then we are doomed for good. Nothing can be so right or so wrong that everybody can love or hate.
Good and Evil doesn't exist on their own, they depend on to who and under what circumstance. The very same event can be good to some and equally evil to others.

Meanwhile, please hit us with your version of the scientific proof of god?

Edit: Away to the dark side, nite nite..

Science is actually proof of God in itself.

Science and maths is only possible because of the patterns and order in the universe. After all, what is science and maths in it's purest form? Is it not simply a record of immutable and repeatable patterns in nature. In reality (not on a screen that can be manipulated) 2 + 2 will ALWAYS = 4. It's a simple repeatable fact of how reality works.

The intelligence built into this universe is a wonder in itself.

Decks, just please don't tell me you're into that alchemy nonsense and believe you'll eventually be able to control other people's minds and change reality with the power of your mind. Just please don't say that. It's the ultimate level of hubris, arrogance and reveals an spectacular superiority complex.

I'd say that you're in your 20's and only discovered these texts in the last 2 years? I reckon you rate The Kybalion (written in 1969). Am I wrong?

Don't get knowledge you don't fully understand and then try to knock people over the head with it. Read it CAREFULLY. All sacred texts talk about how you live your life here on planet earth as a spiritual being. What you are displaying here does not show that you intend to adhere to that principle. Have you actually read The Emerald Tablets of Thoth in it's entirety (not just a few selected passages that you can smash other people over the head with)?

Check the reference.

When I posted the maths of the magic squares, I showed that maths is the universal language, even though I knew others knew this. I am at least twice the age you estimate, and the Kybalion in my opinion is just one book that attempts to describe the events of the bible in simple scientific, provable facts barring one, which I refer folks to in the guis of hidden energies of the earth. I only quoted from the Kybalion, never used it.

If I had the skills I have, before churches were built, I'd be called more than an alchemist (i do know how to make an ever burning lamp, brass, bitumen (miss a few ingredients intentionally)) as I go on a set of decks and control THOUSANDS of minds at once, they know I do it, and they love it. They dance to it, and I get laid afterwards. My electrical knowledge leaves you standing, in this I am a scientist, so yeah, I guess I am an alchemist, since I know which chemicals NOT to blend.

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

Edt: And when I seem to be attacking, keep in mind I am individual, here on my own, and back no-one up, since I have been, Am, and always will be on my own in this reality, and speak for myself using the plethora of information this planet can offer. As for knockin folks over the head with it, dont take my word for it, read a bit more like I did, from books, not the internet. I only react to percieved attacks. Have I attacked ?

The only reason I dont just lay it down is because I gotta be gentle with some o em pussyyyyyyy's...

Edit: The only reason folks find it difficult to twist me to their way of thinking is a very un-usual aquarian trait.. I never pick side's, I like to remain a man in the middle, like a peacekeeper. When my son asked what football team I support, I said Scotland, even though it's a crap team.. Why Scotland, dad, and not a scottish team? For then we are not devided, my son. So when one sect of religion gangs up on a soul son, they should prepare for more than war.. they should prepare for the age of aquarius, the only people clever enough to create the third choice of the two offered, and go that way.. cya..

Ps, incidently, I was born in '69 hahaha

[cbeast]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

What happens if all the science you thought was true turns out to be false? Does that mean your cause is false? Your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science doesn't need causes from the past, it only wants to make predictions about the future. Sometimes our science relies on best guesses.

[jackjack]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

That's not the point
The fact that everything has a cause (true or false) doesn't imply the fact that everything has a meaning/reason

[bl4kjaguar]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

What happens if all the science you thought was true turns out to be false? Does that mean your cause is false? Your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science doesn't need causes from the past, it only wants to make predictions about the future. Sometimes our science relies on best guesses.

So the scientist does not want to "go there" and assume a cause?

Objective and subjective things he thus ascertains to be alike inscrutable in their substance and genesis.

He learns at once the greatness and the littleness of the human intellect — its power in dealing with all that comes within the range of experience, its impotence in dealing with all that transcends experience. He, more than any other (except maybe Socrates), truly knows that in its ultimate nature nothing can be known.

Even the fact of your existence would now be subject to doubt.
Unavoidable as is this belief, it is yet a belief admitting of no justification by reason: nay, indeed, it is a belief which reason, when pressed for a distinct answer, rejects.

Ultimate religious ideas and ultimate scientific ideas, alike turn out to be merely symbols of the actual, not cognitions of it.

I like the word 'symbol' better than 'guess'; presumably, there can be knowledge in the context of semiotics; a guess excludes knowledge. I have quoted Spencer above, and below is Pascal:

"What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe. Who shall unravel this confusion?"

"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."

[bl4kjaguar]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

That's not the point
The fact that everything has a cause (true or false) doesn't imply the fact that everything has a meaning/reason

Perhaps not, but these principles are analogous.

Try to understand what the author of that quote is saying; he is a profound and very objective thinker.

He said a lot of profound things, only a few of which are found here:
http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

[cbeast]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

What happens if all the science you thought was true turns out to be false? Does that mean your cause is false? Your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science doesn't need causes from the past, it only wants to make predictions about the future. Sometimes our science relies on best guesses.

So the scientist does not want to "go there" and assume a cause?

Objective and subjective things he thus ascertains to be alike inscrutable in their substance and genesis.

He learns at once the greatness and the littleness of the human intellect — its power in dealing with all that comes within the range of experience, its impotence in dealing with all that transcends experience. He, more than any other (except maybe Socrates), truly knows that in its ultimate nature nothing can be known.

Even the fact of your existence would now be subject to doubt.
Unavoidable as is this belief, it is yet a belief admitting of no justification by reason: nay, indeed, it is a belief which reason, when pressed for a distinct answer, rejects.

Ultimate religious ideas and ultimate scientific ideas, alike turn out to be merely symbols of the actual, not cognitions of it.

I like the word 'symbol' better than 'guess'; presumably, there can be knowledge in the context of semiotics; a guess excludes knowledge. I have quoted Spencer above, and below is Pascal:

"What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe. Who shall unravel this confusion?"

"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."

I slept through most of my philosophy class lectures. More technology has been created in the last 100 years than when those academics looked down upon the unwashed masses. At least religion has an appetite for smiting which requires technological advancement of weaponry. Philosophy rarely calls anyone to action.

[TheTribesman]

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

So... The Superiority Complex emerges in it's full glory for all to see. Keep on keeping on brother. You're so much more than I.

[jackjack]

The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science.

Huh?

What happens when you assume that science is not founded upon the principle that everything has a cause?

That's not the point
The fact that everything has a cause (true or false) doesn't imply the fact that everything has a meaning/reason

Perhaps not, but these principles are analogous.

Try to understand what the author of that quote is saying; he is a profound and very objective thinker.

He said a lot of profound things, only a few of which are found here:
http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

They are analogous because the reason one thing happen is its cause.
It's a reason, not a meaning.

The reason of two protons giving helium is nuclear force. There is no meaning underlying though.

[Decksperiment]

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

So... The Superiority Complex emerges in it's full glory for all to see. Keep on keeping on brother. You're so much more than I.

Get it right dick (yup, another foreskin puller who dont believe, so attacks those who try to), I have no superior complex, and I'll bet you 100 btc right now that I have the actual answer the OP seeks, if you dont have 100 btc, fuck off back to school. YOU cant afford to have a conversation with me, especially when you refuse the evidence.

Where is YOUR scientific proof of god? If you dont believe, fuck off to the alcoholic pc section designed entirely for clueless cunts like you.

100btc for THE definative answer, the fee is a disclosure fee, take it or leave it.. bet you CANT (using the excuse you wont) pay for the answer you seek, or you would not be reading my junk, idiot!!!!!

And the reason I attack is cause your that dumb you think I'm your brother, stop LYING, and go get a fuckin brain.

Edit: remix of above sentence: The reason I attack you is your that dumb you believe that I am your brother, despite me writing in this thread my mother is dead, making me having a brother SCIENTIFICALLY impossible, stop trying to convince people of your delusions by lying in the hope your kindred will jump in to back YOU up, do I look like your brother? If so, forgive me.. now here's your straight jacket, there's the fuckin door, use it.

Oh, and if it appear's to you I have a superior complex, you are mistaken.. you were told to read books, NOT pdf's or html. It's not my fault I have a superior Scottish education to your fuckin tribal nonsense.. I bet the only reason you dance around the fire is cause you've yet to learn not to stand on hot embers.

Ps, that 100 btc for the definitive answer is offered to all, not that we need it.. but it's worth paying.

[BADecker]

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

So... The Superiority Complex emerges in it's full glory for all to see. Keep on keeping on brother. You're so much more than I.

Get it right dick (yup, another foreskin puller who dont believe, so attacks those who try to), I have no superior complex, and I'll bet you 100 btc right now that I have the actual answer the OP seeks, if you dont have 100 btc, fuck off back to school. YOU cant afford to have a conversation with me, especially when you refuse the evidence.

Where is YOUR scientific proof of god? If you dont believe, fuck off to the alcoholic pc section designed entirely for clueless cunts like you.

100btc for THE definative answer, the fee is a disclosure fee, take it or leave it.. bet you CANT (using the excuse you wont) pay for the answer you seek, or you would not be reading my junk, idiot!!!!!

And the reason I attack is cause your that dumb you think I'm your brother, stop LYING, and go get a fuckin brain.

Edit: remix of above sentence: The reason I attack you is your that dumb you believe that I am your brother, despite me writing in this thread my mother is dead, making me having a brother SCIENTIFICALLY impossible, stop trying to convince people of your delusions by lying in the hope your kindred will jump in to back YOU up, do I look like your brother? If so, forgive me.. now here's your straight jacket, there's the fuckin door, use it.

Oh, and if it appear's to you I have a superior complex, you are mistaken.. you were told to read books, NOT pdf's or html. It's not my fault I have a superior Scottish education to your fuckin tribal nonsense.. I bet the only reason you dance around the fire is cause you've yet to learn not to stand on hot embers.

Ps, that 100 btc for the definitive answer is offered to all, not that we need it.. but it's worth paying.

You and your 100btc. Who is going to judge? If you take it before a common law court in the U.K (Queen's Bench), the answer is that whatever the both of you believe is what is true. There isn't any evidence except a lot of gibberish writing. There isn't any proof. So, neither of you are in any danger of losing 100btc. It's a draw. And you already know this. So you can talk big.

[BADecker]

The first proof for the existence of God is the existence of the universe and everything therein.

The universe is a big machine. It is a highly complex machine. No machine ever existed without a Machine Maker. Whatever or Whoever the Machine Maker is, He is greater by far than mankind. By definition of the word "god," the Machine Maker is God.

----------

The second proof for the existence of God is, there is no pure random. Everything operates by cause and effect, action and reaction. A leaf blowing this way and that in the wind, does so according to the actions of wind molecules on it. The wind molecules act according to other wind molecules that are acting on them. All act according to the waves/particles of heat energy from the sun acting on them all.

Cause and effect goes all the way back to the beginning. Whatever was the Great First Cause was the only thing that had random in it. THAT random produced all the complexities of the universe that we see today, through the cause and effect, the action and reaction that followed.

The thing that people call random and probability is all based on the ignorance of the people. Nobody can follow all the actions of wind molecules on a leaf. People might be able to follow enough of the actions to make a good guess about how the leaf might move. This is the random that the people use. This is the only probability that exists. It is born of the ignorance of the people. There is no true, pure random.

The point is, whatever the Great First Cause is, be it the Big Bang, or be it the God of the Bible, or anything else, it is EXTREMELY God beyond anything we can envision God to be, simply because of the complexity it set up in the beginning, complexity that exists through cause and effect right down to the present.

----------

The third proof for the existence of God lies in the fact that there are billions of people around the world who believe there is a god. All science exists outside of the minds of scientists. A little of it resides in scientific languages (math and writing and speaking) within the minds of scientists. Because of the existence in the minds, the evidence for God in the minds of the people is as valid as any other proof. Even many scientists believe that God exists.

The longer the earth has existed, the longer God has existed in the minds of the people. God is there. He can't be removed from the minds of the people. He might be dulled somewhat, but He can't be removed. He exists.

[jackjack]

The first proof...
It is a highly complex machine. No machine ever existed without a Machine Maker.

A proton is a highly complex machine, it contains quarks and lots of stuff. No machine ever existed without a Machine Maker. Thus god exists.
 

The second proof for the existence of God is, there is no pure random.

Quantum mechanics
 

The third proof...
Because of the existence in the minds, the evidence for God in the minds of the people is as valid as any other proof.

I'm glad you are one of the few people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster
God's concept exists. That doesn't make it a reality.

[rnp]

But is there scientific proof that Satoshi exists?

[Decksperiment]

Have I read the emerald tablets? At one point, every day like some read a bible, not only that, I've re-written it, and comes in the form of an audio book that I created for a blind friend. I have worked in esoteric fields, I have read every esoteric book available online, previous to the last few years, the older the better.. If ya wanna attack an aquarian in the age of aquarius keep in mind that the diety we seek evidence of is more likely to back me up for the next 26.000 years. Have you ever known an aquarian to toe the line, to do what they're told, to follow old, when they ARE the creators of origionality in ways you could not fathom? They are not only the ORIGIONATORS, and hence akin to a creator, something you are incapable of as you attack despite my evidence that god was required to feed his kid. But you only choose to see what you wanna see, you have to look with better eyes..

So... The Superiority Complex emerges in it's full glory for all to see. Keep on keeping on brother. You're so much more than I.

Get it right dick (yup, another foreskin puller who dont believe, so attacks those who try to), I have no superior complex, and I'll bet you 100 btc right now that I have the actual answer the OP seeks, if you dont have 100 btc, fuck off back to school. YOU cant afford to have a conversation with me, especially when you refuse the evidence.

Where is YOUR scientific proof of god? If you dont believe, fuck off to the alcoholic pc section designed entirely for clueless cunts like you.

100btc for THE definative answer, the fee is a disclosure fee, take it or leave it.. bet you CANT (using the excuse you wont) pay for the answer you seek, or you would not be reading my junk, idiot!!!!!

And the reason I attack is cause your that dumb you think I'm your brother, stop LYING, and go get a fuckin brain.

Edit: remix of above sentence: The reason I attack you is your that dumb you believe that I am your brother, despite me writing in this thread my mother is dead, making me having a brother SCIENTIFICALLY impossible, stop trying to convince people of your delusions by lying in the hope your kindred will jump in to back YOU up, do I look like your brother? If so, forgive me.. now here's your straight jacket, there's the fuckin door, use it.

Oh, and if it appear's to you I have a superior complex, you are mistaken.. you were told to read books, NOT pdf's or html. It's not my fault I have a superior Scottish education to your fuckin tribal nonsense.. I bet the only reason you dance around the fire is cause you've yet to learn not to stand on hot embers.

Ps, that 100 btc for the definitive answer is offered to all, not that we need it.. but it's worth paying.

You and your 100btc. Who is going to judge? If you take it before a common law court in the U.K (Queen's Bench), the answer is that whatever the both of you believe is what is true. There isn't any evidence except a lot of gibberish writing. There isn't any proof. So, neither of you are in any danger of losing 100btc. It's a draw. And you already know this. So you can talk big.

I see your still stalking me, kindly refrain from quoting me again so folks know your talking to them n no me, you poor excuse for a preist wi no dog collar, the fact is the answer is so complex, in it's entirety, it would explain itself for me. Pay up or shut up. Even a twat like you could'nae argue with it, but you would would'nt ya? I did'nt hear you backing up bitchick when it got a wee bit tough on (her) last night? Nah, fuck off, bend over, and find that dog collar mutley.. shoo.. piss off.. scram.. oh, n have a bath, cause yer mooths mingin.

Edit: I bypass you now, wont even read yer shite, you do your thing, I'll dae mine, keep tae fuck away fi me and my bairns, idiot stalker.. oh look.. IGNORE BUTTON <-

[Decksperiment]

But is there scientific proof that Satoshi exists?

Um, no.. that's like saying the cloud exists.. ffs, it's nowt more than someone else's hard-drive.

[Decksperiment]

Well, never thought a fake preist would start quoting english law to stop people finding out the ANSWER.

Silly cuntin fake preist clearly does not understand SCOTTISH law, is NOT english.

Too busy spoiling the facts wi bull.. ah well..

He just canae accept that for once, someone has better answer's than even him.

BADecker is a dick.. <- proof god can turn a man into anything.

Edit: notice even he cant argue the fact regarding the sun feeding it's kid?

Cant handle the facts so reads a fuckin book. Heid doon you!!

Edit: I had a thought. 100btc for the answer was nothing more than a confuse n lose point I made, it's like, if someone had irefutable proof, would you really wanna know? The dude never came back, hence confuse and lose tactics, but if anyone wants me to post the answer here for all to see, I'll settle for 1btc (non-refundable), just to see what the fake preist wi nae church would say.. priceless..

[the joint]

The first proof...
It is a highly complex machine. No machine ever existed without a Machine Maker.

A proton is a highly complex machine, it contains quarks and lots of stuff. No machine ever existed without a Machine Maker. Thus god exists.
 

The second proof for the existence of God is, there is no pure random.

Quantum mechanics
 

The third proof...
Because of the existence in the minds, the evidence for God in the minds of the people is as valid as any other proof.

I'm glad you are one of the few people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster
God's concept exists. That doesn't make it a reality.

1) The "no machine without a maker" argument is plausible, but in my opinion it's a fairly weak argument on its own.  It certainly isn't proof.

2) Actually, his point here is fairly accurate.  Chance is essentially another word for unknown causation.  Randomness is practically meaningful to describe certain events, but hardly accurate.  For example, if I flip a coin, you might say there is a 50% chance the coin will land on tails.  In reality, there is 100% certainty that the coin will land on tails given certain conditions (e.g. Height of the flip, force used, wind currents, angle of the flip, slope of the landing surface, etc.  But, in a coin flip, there's no time to take into account all these factors to arrive at a conclusion.  So, practically speaking, we describe the result in terms of probabilities.

3) The Flying Spaghetti Monster argument is a priori invalid, and is a terrible argument against the existence of God.  This is obvious as the FSM is described as only having the characteristics of a polytheistic god and not a monotheistic one.  As a result, this argument is dead on arrival.  Atheists really do themselves a horrible disservice by wielding this argument because it essentially demonstrates that they did not think for themselves about this issue.  The FSM is a very bad, bandwagon argument against the existence of God.

[Decksperiment]

Lol.. well, I can prove that I can create life from nothing, yes, a living thing, without sex, or seed, or machine. I also know how to produce enough food from a single coconut shell that could sustain an entire army of thousands. So whilst I'm not claiming it, that would in theory make me god yes or no?

Ok, maybe not god, but equal to his son?

No takers?

[jcoin200]

Lol.. well, I can prove that I can create life from nothing, yes, a living thing, without sex, or seed, or machine. I also know how to produce enough food from a single coconut shell that could sustain an entire army of thousands. So whilst I'm not claiming it, that would in theory make me god yes or no?

Ok, maybe not god, but equal to his son?

No takers?

I cant tell if you really are delusional, or trying to be sarcastic.  I cant take anything you say serious dude