Scientific proof that God exists?

[Vod]

I get my morals from the golden rule, a profound principle of moral law that is so universal that even humanists accept it; presumably, all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?

The only ones that reject the golden rule are people who have been deceived. Such people are transgressing a moral law, absolutely speaking.

I don't know the golden rule, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "steal from others".  

Does it?

[bl4kjaguar]

Do you have any proof that your god has given you different instructions within the last two millennium?

When it comes to God's messengers, there can be no proof; adequate understanding is encompassed by something called the "content-source problem", and also depends on the wisdom of the one absorbing the content, i.e. that one's ability to recognize truth.

So the answer is you have no proof?

Why then do you believe?

I am side-stepping your question not because I lack an answer, but because you are behaving dishonestly.

[bl4kjaguar]

To default on a debt is not theft; it is an unfortunate circumstance. My creditor does not accuse me of theft or of anything else. Why do you accuse me of something dishonestly?

[Vod]

To default on a debt is not theft; it is an unfortunate circumstance. My creditor does not accuse me of theft or of anything else. Why do you accuse me of something dishonestly?

Seems your tooth fairy has different morals than the rest of us....

I view that as theft, and so do the others that have left you negative feedback.

[bl4kjaguar]

To default on a debt is not theft; it is an unfortunate circumstance. My creditor does not accuse me of theft or of anything else. Why do you accuse me of something dishonestly?

Seems your tooth fairy has different morals than the rest of us....

I view that as theft, and so do the others that have left you negative feedback.

I view your breach of contract as theft, so do I get to say that you have weak morals and that you willingly break the golden rule?

[Vod]

To default on a debt is not theft; it is an unfortunate circumstance. My creditor does not accuse me of theft or of anything else. Why do you accuse me of something dishonestly?

Seems your tooth fairy has different morals than the rest of us....

I view that as theft, and so do the others that have left you negative feedback.

I view your breach of contract as theft, so do I get to say that you have weak morals and that you willingly break the golden rule?

You can say whatever you want.  In your circle it's called brainwashing.

[bl4kjaguar]

You can say whatever you want.  In your circle it's called brainwashing.

I am not the one operating on presumptions here.

Many times you falsely claimed that I believe in that book.
I have been making Spencer's arguments in this thread, and also providing evidence to counter evolution.

Nope.  I'm going to stick with common sense.  You lose.

Agnosticism is not common sense?

Spencer's "First Principles" is not common sense?

Agnosticism is a cult?  

[Vod]

You are presuming that I stole from my creditor; do you know all the facts? Maybe there was a compromise!

Nope - just going from the trust left by two reputable forum members.

Their word is more reliable than yours or your imaginary god.

[bl4kjaguar]

Why?  I'm pointing out obvious gaps in your argument, that's how a debate works.  You should try coming up with an argument that's not full of fallacies

I made this argument which comes to us from Kurt Gödel:

To yield the brain starting from [simple mechanism and] 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].

[Vod]

I guess the best way to get out of an argument is to start another conversation.   

To anyone that thinks this thread is in anyway serious - I apologize.  I thought maybe one on one I could get some "scientific proof".  But all I got was ignoring of questions, double talk and obscure rantings.   Nice cult.   

Absolutely no proof was provided in the 4+ pages I donated to this psycho.

[BCEmporium]

You are presuming that I stole from my creditor; do you know all the facts? Maybe there was a compromise!

Nope - just going from the trust left by two reputable forum members.

Their word is more reliable than yours or your imaginary god.

I've no trades made by the forum, hence why I've no trust feedback. But where I do have feedback it is a flat 100%, never got negatives on business.

But I always take double care when dealing with religious people. If given the chance they might well rob you and then be "forgiven" by their imaginary friend.
And they apply this broadly. When my ex-wife got a web relation with some foreigner guy, cheating, she started to listen to religious crap songs everyday, going to mass... usually too much religion means heavy conscience or bad character.

[SueGiant]

That scientific proof is still not a proof.. It will never be a proof.

[vokain]

No proof or claim of significant support, but scientific to some degree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God_and_the_afterlife

Shouldn't have been high through high school physics Sean.  None of what you post makes any sense.  

Saying something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't make sense, it means you don't understand it.

True that.  I'd challenge you to find a person anywhere in the world who understands your insane rants.  

I bet you Einstein was told similar words.

If you feel something does not make sense, state what you fail to understand and why, else you will never understand it.

Einstein was respected.  You are not.  Get the picture?  

[username18333]

Since it could not, prior Lemakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

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.

[Cortex7]

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".

Yeah well that's the problem... as no "god" has been caught in the wild yet, nobody knows what it's characteristics (and thus requirements) are... back to square zero

[BCEmporium]

An easy one is to be "Almighty". If it isn't Almighty it isn't a God.

[Cortex7]

An easy one is to be "Almighty". If it isn't Almighty it isn't a God.

Fair enough... Case closed!

[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".

Yeah well that's the problem... as no "god" has been caught in the wild yet, nobody knows what it's characteristics (and thus requirements) are... back to square zero

Of course, since there isn't any pure random, but only cause and effect, action and reaction, there isn't really any wild.

[Lauda]

To sum up 85 pages:
There is not scientific proof.
There are only 2000 year old books which could have been written by anyone who was high.
_________________
God doesn't exist.

[bl4kjaguar]

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

If belief in a literal everything is justified, then so too is god(s)?