Scientific proof that God exists?

[cooldgamer]

Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.

Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows.

Close to proof for God:
1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe;
2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random;
3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God.

These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations.

1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it.  Fine-tuned universe fallacy

2: Doesn't make any sense

3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience

As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand.

Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion?

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream.  Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions

[BitChick]

Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least! 

"If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?" 

[vokain]

Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least!  

"If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?"  

dexterity requires a decent amount of dedicated cortical area I believe, and selective pressures called for other adaptations in our (man's) developing environment. I don't know how much flexibility a millipede's poda lends it, versus our use of own appendages, for example.  

http://www.amareway.org/holisticliving/06/sensory-homunculus-cortical-homunculus-motor-homunculus/

[BitChick]

Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least!  

"If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?"  

dexterity requires a decent amount of dedicated cortical area I believe, and selective pressures called for other adaptations in our (man's) developing environment. I don't know how much flexibility a millipede's poda lends it, versus our use of own appendages, for example.  

http://www.amareway.org/holisticliving/06/sensory-homunculus-cortical-homunculus-motor-homunculus/

It was a joke.  Seriously.  Oh well. . . .

[vokain]

for the uninitiated

[BADecker]

Completely off topic, but I saw a quote today that should solve the question of evolution at least! 

"If evolution is true, how come mothers still have only two hands?" 

Cute.   

[BADecker]

Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.

Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows.

Close to proof for God:
1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe;
2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random;
3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God.

These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations.

1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it.  Fine-tuned universe fallacy

2: Doesn't make any sense

3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience

As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand.

Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion?

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream.  Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions

Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion.

[Cortex7]

Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.

Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows.

Close to proof for God:
1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe;
2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random;
3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God.

These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations.

1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it.  Fine-tuned universe fallacy

2: Doesn't make any sense

3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience

As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand.

Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion?

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream.  Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions

Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion.

I would have to agree with BADecker here.

A truly logical and objective person can't draw any 100% conclusions from sensory input that is presented to their conscious mind.

For example we might be living in a simulation. Nobody can argue against the possibility of that. In fact most philosophical arguments would favor that we actually do.

The creator of said simulation would be for all intents and purposes godlike.

Any long drawn out purely logical debate will always lead to this conclusion.

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

I completely agree with emergent complexity through evolution, and it is awesome, but who is to say that's not just a program running in a simulation?

[jasonjm]

maybe slightly off topic, but there seems to be growing problems with the big bang theory. And no big bang theory means more likelihood a supreme creator in my books.

1) Black holes may not exist. This is due to conflict between einstein theories on gravity vs quantum
www.uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

2) surface brightness issue if universe were expanding / Geometry issue
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

3) red shift could have alternative explanations (therefore no explosion no big bang)
www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

[bl4kjaguar]

if the universe is about 6,000 years old like the Bible says

Plato's Timaeus speaks of "citizens of nine thousand years ago"; the story has "the very great advantage of being a fact and not a fiction".

The Bible remembers "a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones".

[bl4kjaguar]

If unintelligent processes, without purpose, evolved into intelligence, how can we then say that we trust our intelligence to tell us how un-intelligence and randomness brought us here?

[BCEmporium]

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

Not quite!
I believe many if not most are Agnostic towards God/s generally speaking.
But the God/s humans talk about, like the Abrahamic God, you would need to be retarded to believe on it. It doesn't even qualify for any sort of God as it is a powerless God, often using humans to do the dirty jobs.

Keeping it logic and objective, there a few requirements a God must fill to be a God or a possible God. And none of the religions that have God/s I know actually speaks about a qualified creature.

[Cortex7]

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

Not quite!
I believe many if not most are Agnostic towards God/s generally speaking.
But the God/s humans talk about, like the Abrahamic God, you would need to be retarded to believe on it. It doesn't even qualify for any sort of God as it is a powerless God, often using humans to do the dirty jobs.

Keeping it logic and objective, there a few requirements a God must fill to be a God or a possible God. And none of the religions that have God/s I know actually speaks about a qualified creature.

So you are saying that if a person subscribing to religion A does not believe in the god of religion B then they are being atheist toward religion B? I think you misunderstand the words.

To be theist you need subscribe to at least one "god" doesn't matter which one, even if it's a brand new one like the flying spaghetti monster. To be "religous" that god must be acknowledged by at least one other person.

Atheism or Theism, both are closing ones mind without enough evidence.

I think the builder/s of a simulated universe would tick all the boxes of being "god/s".

You cannot be certain that we don't exist within a simulation. If you are then you are making claims beyond the scope of your perceptions ( a leap of faith ) and you are stood on ground as weak as any theist.

[BADecker]

Wow, you guys are still talking about this. I think it's clear that if you build your world and philosophy around the idea of a god, you CAN'T accept science or anything else that would destroy your ego. Us non-believers need to understand that while it's easy to see that there is no god, it is asking a lot of believers to recognize the obvious. Its not just this one fact they have to accept. They must throw out all their notions about reality. Not everyone can do that.

Actually, the only thing that maintains the ability to believe that there is no God is the freedom that God allows.

Close to proof for God:
1. Machine quality of the Universe; need a Machine-Maker that is not evident from the universe;
2. There is no such thing as pure random; random as we know it is a crutch to help us because of our weakness; evolution does not exist without God in no pure random;
3. Consciousness and conscience both suggest strongly that there is a God.

These things are evident. They are even scientifically evident. The only time science nullifies them is when people pick and choose the science they are going to use, and then interpret their science in ways that they want, ignoring the other interpretations.

1: No it doesn't, if the universe wasn't in a state to support life the way it happened then we wouldn't be here to comment on it.  Fine-tuned universe fallacy

2: Doesn't make any sense

3: No they don't, they suggest that we are conscience

As long as you keep a narrow mind, or limit yourself to simple thinking, you won't ever understand.

Since you obviously don't understand, who is the leader of your religion that has convinced you into believing the things that you DO believe? I mean, you obviously don't know it through understanding it. So you must have someone who has convinced you of it without understanding. Is he/she your high priest(ess) of your religion?

Saying atheism is a religion is like saying nothing is a flavor of icecream.  Nobody convinced me of anything, I've read up on the science and drawn conclusions

Since atheism can't be proven to be correct, it is a religion in the way it is being handled. Once it is proven (if it is), then it will no longer be a religion.

I would have to agree with BADecker here.

A truly logical and objective person can't draw any 100% conclusions from sensory input that is presented to their conscious mind.

For example we might be living in a simulation. Nobody can argue against the possibility of that. In fact most philosophical arguments would favor that we actually do.

The creator of said simulation would be for all intents and purposes godlike.

Any long drawn out purely logical debate will always lead to this conclusion.

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

I completely agree with emergent complexity through evolution, and it is awesome, but who is to say that's not just a program running in a simulation?

Actually, there is some indirect evidence for a simulation. It works something like this.

God created the universe.

Mankind sinned.

God can't stand sin at all... not even a hint of sin.

God immediately destroyed the universe because all of it is connected... to sin through mankind.

Jesus, Who is the Son of God, caught mankind.

He caught mankind within Himself through inter-dimensional time reaction, that based itself on His promise to suffer and die for mankind at some future time via inter-dimensional reaction.

Because He is the Son of God, all people have been living in a simulation of the original universe that God destroyed, a simulation that is in the God-mind of the God-man, Who is the Almighty Son of God Almighty.

[BADecker]

If unintelligent processes, without purpose, evolved into intelligence, how can we then say that we trust our intelligence to tell us how un-intelligence and randomness brought us here?

When you do a study on randomness, you will find that not only is there NO random, but the concept of random is almost completely outside of anything we can comprehend. We might think we comprehend it, but the more a person is an examiner of science and reality, the more he naturally looks for the reason behind things. Random is a thing that offers no reason whatsoever. Random is non-existent, at least in the form of pure random, and to our minds and comprehension.

[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.

[BCEmporium]

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

Not quite!
I believe many if not most are Agnostic towards God/s generally speaking.
But the God/s humans talk about, like the Abrahamic God, you would need to be retarded to believe on it. It doesn't even qualify for any sort of God as it is a powerless God, often using humans to do the dirty jobs.

Keeping it logic and objective, there a few requirements a God must fill to be a God or a possible God. And none of the religions that have God/s I know actually speaks about a qualified creature.

So you are saying that if a person subscribing to religion A does not believe in the god of religion B then they are being atheist toward religion B? I think you misunderstand the words.

To be theist you need subscribe to at least one "god" doesn't matter which one, even if it's a brand new one like the flying spaghetti monster. To be "religous" that god must be acknowledged by at least one other person.

Atheism or Theism, both are closing ones mind without enough evidence.

I think the builder/s of a simulated universe would tick all the boxes of being "god/s".

You cannot be certain that we don't exist within a simulation. If you are then you are making claims beyond the scope of your perceptions ( a leap of faith ) and you are stood on ground as weak as any theist.

What?! Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

[RodeoX]

Setting aside the truth of a literal god, I have a religious question, at least for Christians.
Is the devil as powerful as God? If he is a weaker god then why does regular God not kick his ass? Why after all this time does he exert more power over the world than the forces of good?
Maybe the Yazidis are right? They believe the devil (The fallen angel) is really like gods helper. he keeps god's human children in line by punishing them in ways god could not.

[Cortex7]

If you want to say "I'm logical and objective" then you must say "I am agnostic"

Not quite!
I believe many if not most are Agnostic towards God/s generally speaking.
But the God/s humans talk about, like the Abrahamic God, you would need to be retarded to believe on it. It doesn't even qualify for any sort of God as it is a powerless God, often using humans to do the dirty jobs.

Keeping it logic and objective, there a few requirements a God must fill to be a God or a possible God. And none of the religions that have God/s I know actually speaks about a qualified creature.

So you are saying that if a person subscribing to religion A does not believe in the god of religion B then they are being atheist toward religion B? I think you misunderstand the words.

To be theist you need subscribe to at least one "god" doesn't matter which one, even if it's a brand new one like the flying spaghetti monster. To be "religous" that god must be acknowledged by at least one other person.

Atheism or Theism, both are closing ones mind without enough evidence.

I think the builder/s of a simulated universe would tick all the boxes of being "god/s".

You cannot be certain that we don't exist within a simulation. If you are then you are making claims beyond the scope of your perceptions ( a leap of faith ) and you are stood on ground as weak as any theist.

What?! Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Yeah sorry, I was still writing mainly about your previous post.

From my experience most people profess to be Atheist or Religious.

So what about you? Are you atheist or agnostic?

[BCEmporium]

Let me put this straight, a thing to be a thing has to have the characteristics of the thing.
If you have a small animal that barfs, you wouldn't call it a cat. If you have a small bush you wouldn't call it a tree. Same goes for God. Something to be God has to meet the "Godly requirements".
Almost, if not all, religions preaches a God that is powerless, can't do anything and requires humans to do his jobs. This doesn't qualify for "Almighty", such creature, if existed and wasn't pure imagination, at best would be slightly stronger than a human, but so is a crane and nobody calls cranes Gods.

To sum this up,

To the absolute knowledge there is no God at all; I'm Agnostic.
About the God or Gods described by religions; I'm strongly Atheist - not only there is no proof of their existence, as there is proof of their non-existence, being it the ignorance such God(s) suffers from and more than obvious evidence they were created by someone reflecting the knowledge of his time.