Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

God wins in the end; that is all that is meant by "almighty".

[BADecker]

God wins in the end; that is all that is meant by "almighty".

Well, actually, it means more like God is in complete control all the time. 

[BADecker]

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.

God is love at the same time He is almighty and completely perfect. Imagine the Bitcoin client. How much of the code can you scrap before it wouldn't work properly? How many mistakes can you make in the code before it will give false answers and mess everything up? There are a lot of altcoin creator wannabe's who found out.

If you limit God to your ideas of what you think He is like, without leaving room for Him to be Who He is, you are always going to get the wrong picture. Because He is Who He is, and because we are what we are, we will probably NEVER get a perfect picture of Him in this life. However, if He wants us to have a perfect and complete picture of Him in this life, He can do it.

[bl4kjaguar]

God wins in the end; that is all that is meant by "almighty".

Well, actually, it means more like God is in complete control all the time. 

Time is not really a thing.

[BADecker]

God wins in the end; that is all that is meant by "almighty".

Well, actually, it means more like God is in complete control all the time. 

Time is not really a thing.

But since we perceive time as something, we can talk about it as such. 

[BCEmporium]

An Almighty thing is Almighty every moment, not in a specific time or the suicidal tendency of keeping talking about the end of times.

And there is no "power" in this God. In the moment nobody cares about him anymore, God will be dead. It just "lives" in some people's imagination, like Santa for grown ups.

[cooldgamer]

This thread was about Scientific Proof of a god, still not seen any credible sources to back up the creationists. 

[vokain]

This thread was about Scientific Proof of a god, still not seen any credible sources to back up the creationists.  

It's all a matter of perspective.  What would qualify as "scientific proof" should first be described. It's different for everyone.

[cooldgamer]

This thread was about Scientific Proof of a god, still not seen any credible sources to back up the creationists.  

It's all a matter of perspective.  What would qualify as "scientific proof" should first be described. It's different for everyone.

Something from a peer reviewed source.

[Vod]

This thread was about Scientific Proof of a god, still not seen any credible sources to back up the creationists.  

81 pages of nonsense.  It's the same if you ask any cult member why they believe.  They will quote 2,000 year old books written by stoners, but no actual proof.

Scientific proof of a god cannot exist, for there are still multiple religions out there and each one believes they are right.

[bl4kjaguar]

3 pieces of hard evidence for skeptics to chew on:

In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

Source

He is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].

Source 1, Source 2

Can skeptics explain this ancient carving of a stegosaurus? The simplest explanation is that the sculptor either saw or remembered such a creature.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs

[BCEmporium]

Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".

In other more simple words: Pointing the others wrong doesn't make you right.

[bl4kjaguar]

Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".

After criticism has abolished Religion's arguments, there has still remained with it the indestructible consciousness of a truth which, however faulty the mode in which it had been expressed, is yet a truth beyond cavil.

And causes more and more abstract, are of necessity causes less and less conceivable; since the formation of an abstract conception involves the dropping of certain concrete elements of thought.

Hence the most abstract conception, to which Science is slowly approaching, is one that merges into the inconceivable or unthinkable, by the dropping of all concrete elements of thought. And so is justified the assertion that the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.

It is impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence somewhere; and whether that assumption be made nakedly or under complicated disguises, it is equally vicious, equally unthinkable. Be it a fragment of matter, or some fancied potential form of matter, or some more remote and still less imaginable mode of being, our conception of its self-existence can be framed only by joining with it the notion of unlimited duration through past time. And as unlimited duration is inconceivable, all those formal ideas into which it enters are inconceivable.

Quotes from a famous agnostic treatise

[Vod]

Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".

After criticism has abolished Religion's arguments, there has still remained with it the indestructible consciousness of a truth which, however faulty the mode in which it had been expressed, is yet a truth beyond cavil.

Hence the most abstract conception, to which Science is slowly approaching, is one that merges into the inconceivable or unthinkable, by the dropping of all concrete elements of thought. And so is justified the assertion that the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.

It is impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence somewhere; and whether that assumption be made nakedly or under complicated disguises, it is equally vicious, equally unthinkable. Be it a fragment of matter, or some fancied potential form of matter, or some more remote and still less imaginable mode of being, our conception of its self-existence can be framed only by joining with it the notion of unlimited duration through past time. And as unlimited duration is inconceivable, all those formal ideas into which it enters are inconceivable.

Quotes from a famous agnostic treatise

So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't?   The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older.  Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.  

[bl4kjaguar]

So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't?   The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older.  Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.  

How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?

When the presiding spirits which Kepler conceived were set aside, and the force of gravitation put in their places; the change was really the abolition of an imaginable agency, and the substitution of an unimaginable one.

[Vod]

So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't?   The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older.  Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.  

How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?

I have intelligence.

[bl4kjaguar]

So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't?   The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older.  Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.  

How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?

I have intelligence.

Well, you have missed my argument, and Spencer's too.

Science, however, like Religion, has but very incompletely fulfilled its office. As Religion has fallen short of its function in so far as it has been irreligious; so has Science fallen short of its function in so far as it has been unscientific.

That which has all along been an unscientific characteristic of Science, has all along been a part-cause of its conflict with Religion.

[cooldgamer]

3 pieces of hard evidence for skeptics to chew on:

In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."

Source

He is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].

What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence.  Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.

Can skeptics explain this ancient carving of a stegosaurus? The simplest explanation is that the sculptor either saw or remembered such a creature.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist

[bl4kjaguar]

What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence.  Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.

Try using an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy.

You would also do well to understand what Spencer is saying.

it is possible that someone created something Stegosaurus-like during the past few years as a joke.

Not possible based on overwhelming evidence; 6 reasons were given on bible.ca.
This article has discredited itself and shown its prejudice.

Fortunately, there is healthy discussion in the comments section; all the comments are great without exception; I really liked this rebuttal for example.

[bl4kjaguar]

They will quote 2,000 year old books written by stoners, but no actual proof.

God says,
"Read it all so that you can judge in wisdom"!