Scientific proof that God exists?

[yvv]

Yes. God exists. That's me. I am talking to you right now, because I Love you. 

I think any god would be able to type a message without talking. 

Stage #2 detected

[Vod]

Yes. God exists. That's me. I am talking to you right now, because I Love you. 

I think any god would be able to type a message without talking. 

Stage #2 detected

Sorry, let me advance to stage 3.

I COMMAND any god is capable of typing a message without talking.

[username18333]

Keep in mind that 'darkness' is just as transparent as the 'water' and hence, does not exist.

Edit: As for the firmament, would'nt that be the 'bit' where other parallel univere's 'join' which MAY explain where that 'spirit' of god came from?

Truth is guy's, I'd go as far as say, WE created the begining, from nothing more than a thought, an eternal thought, that grew in the abyss of our mind. I see us as looking IN life, as opposed to most who see out..

Space is the universal mind.

(Emphasis mine.)

Reconcile that above with this following:

Huh? The scientific proof of God is in the fact that we found the Higgs Boson. Now that we have found this elusive, little particle, just ask Steven Hawking what he calls it. The God particle. It'll be an interesting day if they ever find two of them at the same time. There probably is only ONE in the whole universe.

And it just happened that out of the billions and billions of stars/planets everywhere that this god particle just happened to be found here? That's a laugh in itself, I mean, can this boson/particle speak?

Did'nt think so..

Can it vibrate enough to create ripples throughout the vastness of the void that may be left if all else just imploded?

Did'nt think so..

It was forced (it did not "just [happen]").

At last.. 'Force' implies 2

Those are "very, very, very small [Big Bangs]."

From nothing that moved over the deep we can surmise 4 thing's existed before god:

Depth (of whatever deep) and width

Space (to move)

Time (to get over that deep)

So, where did god come into it?

Seem's that whenever we get to the nitty gritty, no-one can answer where god actually came from, never mind where he got the resource's to do anything..

Oh, and it took my 16 year old daughter to point out that the right's of mithras held in the pyramid's 64.000 years ago, are to be found in the book of enoch

See this following:

Since it could not, prior limakasidian 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.

Nae disrespect mate, I like your simple sentence's, and bypass the crap, there's only one thing worse than a bible basher who cant explain where god came from, and that's someone trying to do same in a way that serve's no reasonably sane purpose for what's left of life.

Whilst we can pray god keeps life going, what can entropy do when your half dead hoping to live?

Fuck all..

entropy is LAZINESS

[acs267]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

[Lethn]

Yes. God exists. That's me. I am talking to you right now, because I Love you. 

I think any god would be able to type a message without talking. 

They would also write with better grammar.

[BitChick]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you. 

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!   

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

[Vod]

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

Ah, we have another brainwashed idiot who spreads the opinion of her priest instead of her own.   

Look forward to dealing with this fool in the future like I've dealt with her fellow cult members. 

[nsimmons]

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas. How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

Ah, we have another brainwashed idiot who spreads the opinion of her priest instead of her own.  

Look forward to dealing with this fool in the future like I've dealt with her fellow cult members.  

Jesus tap dancing christ...I didn't think anyone actually still believed in the flood...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

There are 8.7 million species, did Noah fit all 17.4 million up his ass?

[Vod]

There are 8.7 million species of ANIMALS ALONE, did Noah fit all 17.4 million animals up his ass? Not to mention the other four kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Protoctista, and Prokaryota/Monera

Not to mention the 300 species of dogs that have evolved since noah's time.  How does the weak minded bitchick explain those?

[nsimmons]

There are 8.7 million species of ANIMALS ALONE, did Noah fit all 17.4 million animals up his ass? Not to mention the other four kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Protoctista, and Prokaryota/Monera

Not to mention the 300 species of dogs that have evolved since noah's time.  How does the weak minded bitchick explain those?

It gets even better, since we're doing such a great job of killing the planet the extinction rate is much higher than previously thought, so 4-5000 years ago there was even greater biodiversity.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/current-extinction-rate-10-times-worse-previously-thought

[BitChick]

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas. How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

Ah, we have another brainwashed idiot who spreads the opinion of her priest instead of her own.  

Look forward to dealing with this fool in the future like I've dealt with her fellow cult members.  

Jesus tap dancing christ...I didn't think anyone actually still believed in the flood...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

There are 8.7 million species, did Noah fit all 17.4 million up his ass?

There were two of each kind of animal, not all species and they would have been young and not fully grown.  Sea life would not have been included either.

What is more shocking than the idea of two of each kind of animals being on a ark?  How about all animals evolving from some primordial soup (which is essentially what evolution teaches)  That is even crazier! 

[cryptodevil]

What is more shocking than the idea of two of each kind of animals being on a ark?  How about all animals evolving from some primordial soup (which is essentially what evolution teaches)  That is even crazier! 

I'm having trouble reconciling your appeal to ignorance (amongst the many other logical fallacies you employ) with this post of yours:

Just because something is widely accepted does not make it a fact.  .  .  The huge problem is that most of the world just blindly trusts what is told to them or even taught to them in textbooks or go along with the popular beliefs.  We need to think for ourselves.

Do you understand that the Scientific Method of enquiry means that anybody can recreate the experiments and check the results for themselves? That is the whole point of Scientific Theory, which is NOT the same as "Hey I have a theory as to why  . . ."

So in this thread you close your eyes and block your ears to rational argument and plead for your case on the basis that you can't wrap your head around the scientific facts, so you choose 'facts' which have been asserted by authority, namely, religion. But in the other thread you, quite rightly, point out that it is not possible to prove a fact by general consensus and that, just because billions of people believe in something it does not make it true, you know, like your God.

Your lack of ability to understand evolution is hindered by your unwillingness to practice critical thinking outside the narrow confines of your appeal-to-authority (where what/who you consider to be an authority (The Bible/Preachers) says so) mythology.

Double-standards much?

[BitChick]

There are 8.7 million species of ANIMALS ALONE, did Noah fit all 17.4 million animals up his ass? Not to mention the other four kingdoms Plantae, Fungi, Protoctista, and Prokaryota/Monera

Not to mention the 300 species of dogs that have evolved since noah's time.  How does the weak minded bitchick explain those?

I cannot do justice to what I found by Dr. Kent Hovind for this subject so here it is:

It is true that there are a wide variety of dogs on earth today but please consider the following list of facts.

1.  All the evidence that mankind has ever been able to observe shows us that dogs produce dogs.
2. While there are small dogs and large dogs, there seems to be a limit. I would be willing to bet no one will ever get a dog as small as a flea or as big as Texas.
3.  Dogs also seem able to “adapt” to various climates. Some can survive at -30F in Alaska and others have “adapted” to ±120 in deserts. Again however, there are limits. They will never adapt to ±300F! Or 10,000F!!!
4.  I have had several people who raise dogs for a living tell me that they can take fifty generic “mutts” from the dog pound and, with selective breeding, re-create nearly every breed of dog today in less than 100 years.
5.  Richard Dawkins, famous English atheist who hates creationists (See the movie, “Expelled”), wrote a book in 2005 called The Ancestor’s Tale. On pages 29-31, he tells of a Russian science team that took captive silver foxes and bred them for “tameness.” In twenty years, they watched them change into dogs! They looked like border collies, sought human company, wagged their tails when approached, had black and white coats, had dog-like muzzles and “lovable” floppy ears, developed hormone changes to breed year round, and displayed less aggression. I think you will find that nearly everyone (creationist or evolutionist) agrees that all dogs could have descended from foxes or wolves with no problems.
6. To look at the really big picture, I think it is funny to listen to an evolutionists ask a creationist, “How could all the dogs in the world come from just two dogs on Noah’s ark?” and then turn around and teach that all the dogs in the world came from a rock! Over billions of years of course!  On page 31 of The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins says, “It is entirely probable that cattle, pigs horses, sheep, goats, chickens, geese, ducks, and camels followed a course which was just as fast and just as rich in unexpected side-effects.”

Keep in mind that the changes needed to turn a wolf, fox, or jackal into a dog are minor compared to turning a rock into a dog or even an amoeba into a dog. I’m even willing to let them have the huge head start of not dealing with the major problem of the origin of life issue and letting them start with a hamster (already a mammal, air-breathing, and land-dwelling) and see if they can turn it into a dog.

[BitChick]

What is more shocking than the idea of two of each kind of animals being on a ark?  How about all animals evolving from some primordial soup (which is essentially what evolution teaches)  That is even crazier!  

I'm having trouble reconciling your appeal to ignorance (amongst the many other logical fallacies you employ) with this post of yours:

Just because something is widely accepted does not make it a fact.  .  .  The huge problem is that most of the world just blindly trusts what is told to them or even taught to them in textbooks or go along with the popular beliefs.  We need to think for ourselves.

Do you understand that the Scientific Method of enquiry means that anybody can recreate the experiments and check the results for themselves? That is the whole point of Scientific Theory, which is NOT the same as "Hey I have a theory as to why  . . ."

So in this thread you close your eyes and block your ears to rational argument and plead for your case on the basis that you can't wrap your head around the scientific facts, so you choose 'facts' which have been asserted by authority, namely, religion. But in the other thread you, quite rightly, point out that it is not possible to prove a fact by general consensus and that, just because billions of people believe in something it does not make it true, you know, like your God.

Your lack of ability to understand evolution is hindered by your unwillingness to practice critical thinking outside the narrow confines of your appeal-to-authority (where what/who you consider to be an authority (The Bible/Preachers) says so) mythology.

Double-standards much?

I have considered the other side.  Trust me, growing up in the US I was bombarded with evolutionary teaching from grade school on.  I even believed it for a long time.  I only recently found that it was all lies and realize that the word of God is really the one thing I should trust above all.  Really, is it logical to believe that the beautiful and intricately designed life we see around us just happened by random chance?  We live in a world that wants desperately to discredit God and His word.  You can call me a fanatic. You can say I am the one that is "brainwashed."  But there will come a day when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  The question is will people do it now, on their own and receive the gift of eternal life or will they do it when they are forced to and suffer the consequences of rejecting God?  But everyone has that choice.

[seattlenonsmoker]

AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH

How do I get this silly post off my update feed?

[cryptodevil]

I have considered the other side.  Trust me, growing up in the US I was bombarded with evolutionary teaching from grade school on.  I even believed it for a long time.  I only recently found that it was all lies and realize that the word of God is really the one thing I should trust above all.  

Riiiiiight, so objective research supported by multiple sources of evidence derived from observation, experimentation and measurement can't be trusted, but "The word of God", which is derived from arbitrary declarations by various human beings over the years as to what 'He' is and wants of us and, more importantly, what he disapproves of like an uptight Christian Conservative, is solid evidential referencing?

Wow.

Just.Wow.

:head-desk:
:head-desk:
:head-floor:

[BitChick]

I have considered the other side.  Trust me, growing up in the US I was bombarded with evolutionary teaching from grade school on.  I even believed it for a long time.  I only recently found that it was all lies and realize that the word of God is really the one thing I should trust above all.  

Riiiiiight, so objective research supported by multiple sources of evidence derived from observation, experimentation and measurement can't be trusted, but "The word of God", which is derived from arbitrary declarations by various human beings over the years as to what 'He' is and wants of us and, more importantly, what he disapproves of like an uptight Christian Conservative, is solid evidential referencing?

Wow.

Just.Wow.

:head-desk:
:head-desk:
:head-floor:

There is archeological evidence and there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible.  The problem is no matter how great the evidence is it is automatically discredited by many in the "scientific" community.   Why?  Man is wise in his own eyes.  To admit the Bible is true and that God is real takes humility.  Pride is considered the worst sin and it is understandable why that is.  It keeps us from even seeking God to begin with.  There is a belief that we do not even need Him or He doesn't even exist.  

If the Bible wasn't true, why would people be willing to die for what it stands for?  Why are people killed in some places just for having it?  It is obviously such a threat that it cannot even be owned in communist countries.  Why is that?   You can say that everyone that believes it is just crazy and brainwashed or you can actually read it for yourself and decide why this book is so important and life changing to begin with.  

[cryptodevil]

There is archeological evidence and there is scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

No. There isn't. When real scientists perform real scientific experiments they have to be peer reviewed to check the veracity of what is being claimed. No theist claim towards "I can haz Jesus exsperiment!" has ever survived critical analysis or peer review.

Theism-based 'science' isn't science. It's a mix of error, delusion and, often, outright lies painted to convince those desperate to have their fragile 'spirit' soothed that your 'science' is just as good as real science. It isn't, otherwise it could survive the Scientific Method of enquiry.

If the Bible wasn't true, why would people be willing to die for what it stands for?  Why are people killed in some places just for having it?  

Listen to yourself, "If [X] isn't true, why are people willing to kill and die for what it means?"

So, again, I ask you, on what basis does a multitude of people believing something is true actually serve to prove anything about whether it is true?

Answer: It doesn't

That is called, "Argumentum ad populum"

Example:
Up until very recently in human history, pretty much EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET, believed that lightning was some sort of supernatural force. Having actually studied it properly, by way of objective experiment, testing and measurement, we know that lightning is electricity.

So, just because billions of people for thousands and thousands of years all believed the same thing, did it convey any validity to what they believed? No.

The reason why people are willing to kill and die over their religious belief is because of the nature of the belief, namely, their entire identity, their sense-of-self, is rooted in the premise that they are playing a part in some cosmic narrative playing out beneath the gaze of a deity who will reward/punish them as they progress. So, depending on how desperate they are to please this deity and, thus, validate themselves as not being just an individual within a biological species, you will witness them being all-too-eager to commit atrocity and horrors upon other members of our species for not being 'like them', for not thinking 'like them' and for not believing 'like them'.

You can cite Communism all you want, but Communism is about power and control over the people, Dictatorships are about power and control over the people, Theocracies are about power and control over the people.

Atheism is not. Atheism is the rejection of theist assertion of the existence of a God because the assertion is baseless and lacks any evidence whatsoever to support it.

You can say that everyone that believes it is just crazy and brainwashed or you can actually read it for yourself and decide why this book is so important and controversial to begin with.  

You think I haven't? I have read it and countless other 'Holy' books and stories in considerably more detail and with much greater thought than most who slavishly worship them.

[cocos]

Religion and schizophrenia

"The relationship between religion and schizophrenia is of particular interest to psychologists because of the similarities between religious experiences and psychotic episodes; religious experiences often involve auditory and/or visual hallucinations, and those with schizophrenia commonly report similar hallucinations, along with a variety of delusions and faulty beliefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_schizophrenia

[BitChick]

Ok.  I can see that my beliefs are considered "crazy."

So let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am crazy.  I live my entire life believing the Bible is true and then I die.  Well if atheism is true then what will it matter?  When I die I will cease to exist anyways.  I won't even know I was wrong.  I suppose the fact that I lived my life under the "strict" or "stifling" rules of the Bible could be perceived as a negative thing if this is the case but I feel like God has spared me from many horrible choices and kept me from hurting myself along the way.  But even so, let's say that I missed some "good times" that is the worst thing that will happen if the Bible isn't true then, isn't it?

But let's say that a person who believed in what the evolutionary scientists said was true and that they evolved from "primordial soup."  This person would then live their life doing whatever they felt was right to them and perhaps enjoy the perceived freedom this brings.  But what would happen when they die if they were wrong?"  The Bible warns of incredible suffering where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for all of eternity. 

It seems like people are putting a great amount of "faith" in evolutionary science and in what scientists have theorized.  Will the scientists be able to help the people after death if they misled them?  Will these people be able to barter with God and say, "Oh sorry.  My bad.  I just believed in what the scientists taught me?"

I would just keep that in mind.