Scientific proof that God exists?

[username18333]

This is the definitive answer to the question, mines not to question where I got that statement, for once known, it is true.

There is NO answer.

Again, your reply is neither scientific nor evidence.

My "plagiarized" (these are not academic works, and, therefore, improper citation should not be held to constitute plagiarism) restatement of a fundamental determination within limakasidian entropism was based upon not only science but evidence thereof.

Ok, provide proof dude, scientific proof that can be measured, touched, seen, you name it.. all man will ever do is argue about it, this is WHY people question it in the first place, because GOD cannot be scientifically proven, just as we cannot prove what we dream. We know we do, but we cant.

37 = esoteric truth, that which we know, but cannot prove
27 = truth revealed, that which we know and can prove

Hence, there is NO answer

Barring this:

We can go round and round forever debating it using any means necessary to get a point across, but it is NOT the answer, for their is NONE.

Scientific "proof" cannot be proof, for science employs inference.

However, for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mix food coloring into a glass of water, and, then, try to take it out without introducing any new disorder into the surrounding environment (including, without limitation, your own body).

[Decksperiment]

Water purification tablets supplied by armies in ration packs

That is assuming of course, that the surrounding environment is the glass containing said liquid?

We could also filter water so many times through a pair of jeans, which will absorb the colour, even more the more you times you do so?

It's like imagine being in a field, and you just got hit with a massive cloud of tear ags, most folks would luagh at pissin on a cloth then placing cloth over face..

[username18333]

Water purification tablets supplied by armies in ration packs

That is assuming of course, that the surrounding environment is the glass containing said liquid?

The glass and everything else in the known universe and beyond (including, without limitation, your own self [and your tablets]).

[Decksperiment]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

[Decksperiment]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

Photons exist as vibrations within a field. Those vibrations are disorder that is extrinsic to the system and new to it's environment.

Long story short, you aren't allowed to create any new information (id est, do anything).

[Decksperiment]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

Something about a flame:

A flame in itself does not exist, what we see is the colour of the heat. We can see the heat, but cannot touch it, for it exists at the point of non-existance.. which is why it gets so hot. Now since the water has heat, I would not be adding any external source, only increasing that which, by your definition, already exists.

Photons exist as vibrations within a field. Those vibrations are disorder that is extrinsic to the system and new to it's environment.

Git back to the water, beat my last answer.. again, based on your lab set up, the water will evaporate of its own accord through time, leaving the colouring behind

You know I got ya here huh?

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, previously non-existent transfers of energy.

[Decksperiment]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Edit: twas a good question, you had me thinking, but it is also an invalid question with regards to your point, due to the fact you forgot water is constantly changing.

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Water is common and clearly demonstrates that the only way to "reduce" entropy (here, separate water from dye dissolved in it) is to transfer it (here, mix the water into the atmosphere via evaporation).

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Edit: twas a good question, you had me thinking, but it is also an invalid question with regards to your point, due to the fact you forgot water is constantly changing.

That "constant change" illustrates (part of) my point: entropy does, indeed, proceed towards a maximum.

[Decksperiment]

C'mon, admit it, I answered your question, albeit, not being the answer you sought.. see, water, even when perfectly still, will still evaporate. Neither you or I can change this.

In my mind you say to pour colouring into a glass, then remove said colouring without any external interferences..

If there was a bet on this, I won.

[Decksperiment]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Edit: twas a good question, you had me thinking, but it is also an invalid question with regards to your point, due to the fact you forgot water is constantly changing.

That "constant change" illustrates (part of) my point: entropy does, indeed, proceed towards a maximum.

Only in this particular case, I succesfully removed said colouring without using any external source by simply KNOWING the way.

Edit: Sooory dude, if you cant give credit for such a perfect answer, and move on to another question, I'm nippin to pub, I debunked ye there, though it was not my intention.. the correct thing to say here was you put your foot in it

Next challenge?

[username18333]

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Edit: twas a good question, you had me thinking, but it is also an invalid question with regards to your point, due to the fact you forgot water is constantly changing.

That "constant change" illustrates (part of) my point: entropy does, indeed, proceed towards a maximum.

Only in this particular case, I succesfully removed said colouring without using any external source by simply KNOWING the way.

Edit: Sooory dude, if you cant give credit for such a perfect answer, and move on to another question, I'm nippin to pub, I debunked ye there, though it was not my intention.. the correct thing to say here was you put your foot in it

Next challenge?

Here.

Boil glass of water, colouring will stick to sides.

By what means shall you boil such that you do not introduce "new disorder" into yourself (as per the requirements)?

Ok, I'll sit it out knowing the water will evaporate, and leave the colouring behind. I promise not to touch it

That introduces new disorder into the environment, the diffusion of the water molecules through the atmosphere.

You introduced this disorder, not I, I just sat and fell asleep watching it.. remember your up against someone who will get to the truth of the matter, in that you chose water, knowing it would evaporate of it's own accord, I had no say in this scientific fact, I merely debunked the question, using nothing.

Water is common and clearly demonstrates that the only way to "reduce" entropy (here, separate water from dye dissolved in it) is to transfer it (here, mix the water into the atmosphere via evaporation).

[Decksperiment]

To be honest mate, the water analogy was interesting, but you are goin on a bit..

Aquarians are away doing sumat else very quickly, at least you held my attention for a bit, but you lost it by goin on about something I actually find boring, for it i useless arguing with someone who cannot accept their own flawed questions lead nowhere..

[username18333]

To be honest mate, the water analogy was interesting, but you are goin on a bit..

Aquarians are away doing sumat else very quickly, at least you held my attention for a bit, but you lost it by goin on about something I actually find boring, for it i useless arguing with someone who cannot accept their own flawed questions lead nowhere..

Demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what you assert is more valid than that which I assert, and I will surely concede.

[Vod]

So Dicksperiment, any proof of those 50btc you own?   

[BADecker]

No, no, no. Don't write it "aquarians." After all, you don't see Christians writing it "christians." They give their religion dignity by capitalizing the first letter. Call the people of your religion "Aquarians," not "aquarians."

[BADecker]

So Dicksperiment, any proof of those 50btc you own?   

Yeah, Decky. Take Vod on his honor, and send him the bitcoins. He'll send 'em back if he loses.