Scientific proof that God exists?

[vokain]

LOL projecting?

Please explain.

It is an abusive relationship, between you and your theism. The theism causes stress levels to rise when you encounter conflicting positions about your reality, and when you cannot conjure up a sufficient resolution to the conflict, you double-down and immerse yourself more into your theist narrative by seeking ways to wrap it around you tighter, adding layers of explanations as to why your mythical deity might permit so much horror and abuse in our lives if he is so powerful, you dream up excuses for him, to explain away the lack of intervention in natural disasters or personal suffering, all the while looking for ways to pretend to yourself that the good in your life is a reward from him and the bad is simply him testing you, you know, because he loves you so.

To me, it is you that seems to be stressed over others' theisms, not the subjects of your rant.

[Vod]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

How about the earth?

Those two believe a magical genie is going to appear and save mankind, fixing global warming and overpopulation.

If everyone believed that our actions on this world have consequence, we would make better choices as a society.

Thank Vod their numbers are going down and they are a dying breed.

[vokain]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

How about the earth?

Those two believe a magical genie is going to appear and save mankind, fixing global warming and overpopulation.

If everyone believed that our actions on this world have consequence, we would make better choices as a society.

Thank Vod their numbers are going down and they are a dying breed.

In a recent interview for Voices of Liberty, analyst and VOL Contributor Julie Borowski had this to say about Ebola:
"I just personally think it’s not that it’s not that big of a deal. I think a lot of people are panicking over nothing. I think, really, the market can solve it more than the government can.”
Do you agree that the market can do a better job solving the Ebola “crisis” than the government?

It is possible that that magic genie is Us.

[username18333]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

How about the earth?

Those two believe a magical genie is going to appear and save mankind, fixing global warming and overpopulation.

If everyone believed that our actions on this world have consequence, we would make better choices as a society.

Thank Vod their numbers are going down and they are a dying breed.

In a recent interview for Voices of Liberty, analyst and VOL Contributor Julie Borowski had this to say about Ebola:
"I just personally think it’s not that it’s not that big of a deal. I think a lot of people are panicking over nothing. I think, really, the market can solve it more than the government can.”
Do you agree that the market can do a better job solving the Ebola “crisis” than the government?

It is possible that that magic genie is Us.

It is more profitable to "treat" than to "solve."

[vokain]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

How about the earth?

Those two believe a magical genie is going to appear and save mankind, fixing global warming and overpopulation.

If everyone believed that our actions on this world have consequence, we would make better choices as a society.

Thank Vod their numbers are going down and they are a dying breed.

In a recent interview for Voices of Liberty, analyst and VOL Contributor Julie Borowski had this to say about Ebola:
"I just personally think it’s not that it’s not that big of a deal. I think a lot of people are panicking over nothing. I think, really, the market can solve it more than the government can.”
Do you agree that the market can do a better job solving the Ebola “crisis” than the government?

It is possible that that magic genie is Us.

It is more profitable to "treat" than to "solve."

Perhaps nominally on a shorter time scale and with distorted value representation systems.

[username18333]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

How about the earth?

Those two believe a magical genie is going to appear and save mankind, fixing global warming and overpopulation.

If everyone believed that our actions on this world have consequence, we would make better choices as a society.

Thank Vod their numbers are going down and they are a dying breed.

In a recent interview for Voices of Liberty, analyst and VOL Contributor Julie Borowski had this to say about Ebola:
"I just personally think it’s not that it’s not that big of a deal. I think a lot of people are panicking over nothing. I think, really, the market can solve it more than the government can.”
Do you agree that the market can do a better job solving the Ebola “crisis” than the government?

It is possible that that magic genie is Us.

It is more profitable to "treat" than to "solve."

Perhaps nominally on a shorter time scale and with distorted value representation systems.

Singular Homo sapiens lives are fairly short.

[vokain]

We die so we can live and learn (or not).

[username18333]

We die so we can live and learn (or not).

One dies because it didn't use its entropy to think.

[vokain]

We die so we can live and learn (or not).

One dies because it didn't use its entropy to think.

Good thing there's (possibly) always next time, if you so think

[username18333]

We die so we can live and learn (or not).

One dies because it didn't use its entropy to think.

Good thing there's (possibly) always next time, if you so think

Good thing there's (definitely) "right now."

[vokain]

We die so we can live and learn (or not).

One dies because it didn't use its entropy to think.

Good thing there's (possibly) always next time, if you so think

Good thing there's (definitely?) right now.

Good

[BADecker]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

Because they require you to induce 'magical thinking' and 'thought avoidance' in order to ensure that the intellectually honest part of your psyche, your subconscious, does not break it down into its component parts and inform your conscious self of the truth of the delusion.

This means you are living a life of persistent neurological stress, with raised levels of cortisol causing a dysfunctional stress-response as it can never resolve the dichotomy between what you wish reality to be, versus what your brain knows reality to be.

It is an abusive relationship, between you and your theism. The theism causes stress levels to rise when you encounter conflicting positions about your reality, and when you cannot conjure up a sufficient resolution to the conflict, you double-down and immerse yourself more into your theist narrative by seeking ways to wrap it around you tighter, adding layers of explanations as to why your mythical deity might permit so much horror and abuse in our lives if he is so powerful, you dream up excuses for him, to explain away the lack of intervention in natural disasters or personal suffering, all the while looking for ways to pretend to yourself that the good in your life is a reward from him and the bad is simply him testing you, you know, because he loves you so.

It is disturbingly akin to the type of relationship that develops between a parent and the child they routinely abuse. The child seeks to excuse the behaviour of their parent, seeks to be able to find ways to get the parent to love them and approve of them, the child blames themselves for when the parent gets mad and hurts them and the child is elated and grateful to the parent when there are moment of fleeting reward from them.

You keep citing 'science' to support your position when, the truth is, your sources are utter crap. That's not science its pseudoscience reverse-engineered to support the end position of the theist delusion. It is mangled data and shonky interpretations designed to ensure that A+B=Bible.

Stop quoting 'facts' as facts, they are not. You are so terribly, terribly, wrong it isn't even funny. You have been, and are being, brainwashed and conditioned to readily accept the worst examples of theist 'scientific data' solely on the basis that they worked back from where they wanted to get to and ignored and discarded all the data that didn't fit their requirements.

You boldly assert things as true which are absolutely absurd. You make grand statements about your God's behaviour and intentions, as if these things are facts when they are simply what you have been told to believe.

Tell me, what's the difference between your God and Harry Potter? What aspects of your God exists outside of your imagination?

And here I was hoping it wouldn't be so painful. I mean the part about being faithful to God so that I get eternal life in the resurrection.

[BitChick]

@BitChick @BADecker

Do you want to know why you should not consider it harmless to maintain your religious beliefs?

Because they require you to induce 'magical thinking' and 'thought avoidance' in order to ensure that the intellectually honest part of your psyche, your subconscious, does not break it down into its component parts and inform your conscious self of the truth of the delusion.

This means you are living a life of persistent neurological stress, with raised levels of cortisol causing a dysfunctional stress-response as it can never resolve the dichotomy between what you wish reality to be, versus what your brain knows reality to be.

It is an abusive relationship, between you and your theism. The theism causes stress levels to rise when you encounter conflicting positions about your reality, and when you cannot conjure up a sufficient resolution to the conflict, you double-down and immerse yourself more into your theist narrative by seeking ways to wrap it around you tighter, adding layers of explanations as to why your mythical deity might permit so much horror and abuse in our lives if he is so powerful, you dream up excuses for him, to explain away the lack of intervention in natural disasters or personal suffering, all the while looking for ways to pretend to yourself that the good in your life is a reward from him and the bad is simply him testing you, you know, because he loves you so.

It is disturbingly akin to the type of relationship that develops between a parent and the child they routinely abuse. The child seeks to excuse the behaviour of their parent, seeks to be able to find ways to get the parent to love them and approve of them, the child blames themselves for when the parent gets mad and hurts them and the child is elated and grateful to the parent when there are moment of fleeting reward from them.

You keep citing 'science' to support your position when, the truth is, your sources are utter crap. That's not science its pseudoscience reverse-engineered to support the end position of the theist delusion. It is mangled data and shonky interpretations designed to ensure that A+B=Bible.

Stop quoting 'facts' as facts, they are not. You are so terribly, terribly, wrong it isn't even funny. You have been, and are being, brainwashed and conditioned to readily accept the worst examples of theist 'scientific data' solely on the basis that they worked back from where they wanted to get to and ignored and discarded all the data that didn't fit their requirements.

You boldly assert things as true which are absolutely absurd. You make grand statements about your God's behaviour and intentions, as if these things are facts when they are simply what you have been told to believe.

Tell me, what's the difference between your God and Harry Potter? What aspects of your God exists outside of your imagination?

I do believe your questions are sincere.  There is so much to comment on here but I will do my best.

As for your concern that my "religious beliefs" are indeed harmful, I guess my response is that I have found a peace that is beyond understanding.  This brings great comfort, and way less stress, knowing that when things in a world that is often seemingly "out of control" I trust God has a plan.  Jesus had a "stressful" life.  As Christians we are supposed to be like Christ, so to expect a carefree and painless life is not realistic.  Unfortunately many Christians perceive God as a giant Santa Claus in the sky.  They think that by following Him then everything will be great and then they are disappointed when the problems of life come along.  But God promises to never leave us or forsake us and He walks with us through the journey.

All this said, it doesn't mean I haven't wrestled with this myself.  I am often tempted to have a more agnostic view.  That God just placed everything in motion and now He just stands from afar and watches as the we struggle here on earth.  It especially feels this way when things are not working out the way I would like them too, or I see suffering around me and so on.  But I have had such personal encounters with God that have left me knowing this is not the case.

As a very young child I literally heard God whisper to me the words, "I am crying too" as I asked Him why I had to endure continual abuse.  It was enough for me to know that He was at least there and understood my pain.

When I was a teen I was involved with the Christian music industry.  I had some crappy things happen. I  had a song that I wrote stolen and used by someone in the industry because "God told them to change my song."  They took it and made money off it and I was devastated.  I also saw so much hypocrisy in the church and in the "Christian Industry" that one night in anger I yelled at God and said, "I don't care anymore.  If this is the way the church is I don't want anything to do with it!  I might as well be a secular artist!"  That same night, however, I was at a friend's house and her aunt, which I had never met, pulled me aside.  She said God had a message for me and she said that He was pleased with me and that He was going to use me and my music if I just trusted in Him.  I literally felt a large amount of oil being poured over my head and down to my feet.  There was nothing touching me though.  But it was God intervening, out of compassion for me.  I then felt a "high" like nothing ever before.  That entire night it was like I was wrapped in God's Spirit and it was better than anything I have ever felt in my life, better than sex, better than any drug!  There is a verse in the Bible that says, "Do not be drunk with wine but be filled with the Spirit instead."  I totally get that!

As the years have gone on my relationship with God is one that I am still "working out" as we like to put it.  Of course there are still questions in my mind.  I think it is easy to be "logical" and think that things just don't make sense.   But He has always been faithful to meet me right where I am at, as long as I am coming to Him with an open heart.  The latest thing He has given me the opportunity to do is go to India in a couple weeks.  I will be singing and speaking to over 500 women there.  Pretty amazing!    I was bummed that Bitcoin hasn't increased in price because I was originally planning on a selling a few to pay my way.  With the low price it just didn't work out like I had planned, but God, being faithful like He has shown me, provided all of the money I needed.  I didn't have to sell coins at a loss which is so great.

I don't expect most people on here to "get it."  But if there is anyone reading this that questions that there might be more then I highly encourage you just to pray and ask God to reveal Himself to you.  Until God reveals Himself and His Spirit opens the eyes of our hearts and minds it will just seem like nonsense and "foolishness" and I am just some crazy chick on the internet that has lost her mind.   

[the joint]

Please talk to a psychiatrist, you seem to have very severe depression if you hate living on this planet.  Not even being Sarcastic.

Back to the topic, the science of evolution is based on observation.  We have made organisms evolve in a lab right before our eyes.  Dog breeding works the same except with humans deciding which traits to keep instead of nature.  We can observe our common ancestors by looking at the body compared to other primates.  While the fossil record is not complete, what we have so far points to evolution.  

I don't believe in spiderman because there are fans of his enemies, that is pretty much the logic you're going on for saying satanism proves it.  Same with saying gods word proves it, says so right there in the comic that he is real!

I love the beauty of God's creation that I see all around me.  I love the people that I am thankful to have relationships with.  I love the people that speak with on these boards, even if they hate me and say I need a psychiatrist.

But I also see the misery of life and the hate (due to Satan's influence) that causes people to kill, steal and destroy.  There is evil all around us.  You must be marvelously blessed to have avoided the sufferings that are common to man?  Seriously.  We all deal with death, pain, sickness and so on.  This is not how God intended for us to live.  It is part of the fact we live in a fallen and not perfect world, one that eventually He will make right again.  

Dog breeding produces dogs right?  Has anyone bred a dog to become a cat?  Until I can see changes from one kind into another kind I will not believe in evolution.  There have been adaptations but these adaptations are not proof of evolution from one kind into another.  We as humans have more in common with dogs than apes so looking at the physical bodies to make comparisons is not enough.

You don't have to agree with me.   You don't have to believe in God.  That is the amazing thing about "free will."  I am just trying to encourage a few people on here to think about the risks of not believing.  If something is true then it doesn't matter if I believe it or you believe it or if any of us believes it.  If God's word is true then we will all be accountable to it.  

My point about "satanism" was just an interesting fact.  There is no other religion that has an "anti-religion" formed to fight it.  It was not proof by any means. I just figured it was an interesting thought that should at least cause us to pause and think for a minute.

You pretty much just admitted that evolution exists.  Macro evolution (changing species) is nothing more than micro evolution (changing traits) over a long period of time, to the point that one is not able to breed with another, and you have a new species just like that.  Think about domesticated dogs vs wolves and how different they are.  Over time they will become more and more different, to the point that they are no longer able to mate (this would be if they were in the wild, doesn't really apply since pets aren't going to be subjected to survival of the fittest but irrelevant to the example).  At this point you have a new species.  

For the record I don't hate you, you really did sound depressed

Macro and Micro evolution are very different!  We have not seen evidence of macro evolution (changes of a fish to a dog for example).  The solution that evolutionary scientists give is just to throw "millions of years" into the equation so that they can rationalize that it took that long to happen. (still not long enough)  If the changes that occur cause differences that make it so the species cannot mate isn't that an evolutionary problem in itself?  Creationists completely agree with "micro evolution" because it is simply adaptations or changing of traits within a species.  It is such a huge jump from changes within a species to changes outside of a species though, one that has no fossil record or evidence to support whatsoever.

You are completely wrong.  The process of a new species being formed is (using the wolf example)

Due to something, wolves are separated into A and B and unable to reach eachother.  Group B is in a different climate than group A

Both groups breed over a long period of time and evolution makes them adapt to their surroundings

Over a long enough period, the changes are so great that if group A and B met, their different features would make them unable to mate.  This could be from different mating periods/rituals, physical changes, etc



The dog and wolf example wasn't the best as I forgot to throw isolation in there, but same basic idea.

This response provides an alternative view to the typically-proposed false dichotomy of Evolution vs. God:

I've always been fascinated by interpretations of data associated with evolution.  Accordingly, I have two main points I'd like to add, one of which focuses on the data itself, and the other focuses on a priori philosophical knowledge, i.e. knowledge that is evident independent of any evidence.  An example of such knowledge is the law of identity, i.e. x = x.  Because of this knowledge, we know right off the bat that we don't need to go searching for something that is not itself because we know a priori that it's a logical impossibility.

1) In consideration of the overwhelming body of evidence collected in support of Modern Evolutionary Theory, I'd like to point out that there exists other, equally-plausible interpretations of the same data set that lead to different theoretical conclusions.   For example, it is valid to conclude that the data suggest that the evolution of conscious states leads to evolved physical states; in contrast, modern evolutionary theory concludes that evolved physical states lead to evolved conscious states.

These are what we call "mathematically uncertain" theories because it is uncertain which theory is 'more correct.'  Mathematically uncertain theories are constantly overlooked as the vast majority of people -- even those with advanced educations -- lack the awareness that mathematically uncertain theories exist.  To this end, we must either find new evidence to help distinguish between multiple equally-valid theories, or find flaws in either our methodology for interpreting and explaining the data.  This brings me to my second point...

2) As mentioned previously, a priori knowledge -- which is real and should not be outright discredited because it does not rely on empirical observation -- helps us to know certain things in advance so that we don't waste our time exploring ideas that are logically impossible.  If it weren't for this sort of knowledge, it would be impossible to devise the scientific method in the first place.  Right from the get go, science carries certain assumptions based upon a priori knowledge. A fundamental example would be the knowledge that observation must be the basis for any and all empirical study; we did not need any empirical study or evidence to reach this conclusion.

Accordingly, we can look to see what types of a priori knowledge might be useful in helping to guide our interpretation of the evolutionary data set.  In my opinion, one of the most fundamental logical principles is the sameness-in-difference principle, which simply put is the idea that differences necessarily arise from similarities.  Put in more complex terms, it means that any two relational entities A and B must share a common, relational medium.  Therefore, it is impossible for any entity to be absolutely different from any other; to state that A and B are absolutely different is to reinforce their similarities by binding them together such that, at the very least, they share a common medium of absolute difference .  If two things actually could be absolutely different from each other, then it would be impossible talk about them in the same sentence.  Descartes, though obviously an intelligent fellow, overlooked this error when proposing his idea of Cartesian Dualism.  He attempted to place an insurmountable barrier between physical and mental reality, thereby violating the sameness-in-difference principle of logic.  Science abides by this split since it assumes a Positivistic Universe does not, will not, and can never be influenced by observation itself to any significant degree.  

The implications of such a principle are vast as they speak to the core nature of all entities. Perhaps most notably, it points to a shared relationship between mental and physical reality.  This is important because it allows room for talk about things such as Universal Consciousness (God?) and an inherently meaningful Universe.  

I'd also point out that there is a case to be made for a Universe that relies more on the abstract rather than the physical.  Observation by itself employs a metric (a standard of measurement) which allows us to distinguish between the things we want to study and examine through empiricism.  Without this metric, it would be impossible to define *any*thing.  Scientists talk about the Universe as if it could be described if all conscious agents were removed from it.  Unfortunately, they forget that without any conscious agents it would be impossible to define the Universe and all entities contained therein.  Accordingly, anybody who tries to tell you anything about what the Universe would or could be like if all conscious agents were removed is wasting their time; it's simply impossible to say *any*thing about such a Universe.

I would only add to this wonderful post a distinction between logically possible and demonstrably possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility

Thanks for the addition   It was a nice read.

[Vod]

Today is cult education day!  

Once a week, members of the christian faith get together to assure themselves as a group that they are not crazy.

The christian bible says you should be killed if you work today!

Repetition is necessary for brainwashing.  Those who do not go to church every sunday are more likely to become atheists.

What are YOU doing today?  (Hopefully not working!  lol)

[Iamyourdad]

According to legend, in 1989 a team of Russian scientists who were operating under the direction of Dr. Azzacove drilled a hole that was nine miles deep in an unnamed place in Siberia before breaking through into a cavity. Intrigued by this unexpected discovery, they lowered an extremely heat tolerant microphone, along with other sensory equipment, into the well. They listened and recorded (purportedly) the tormented screams of desperate people. The second surprise was the high temperature that they discovered at the earth's center, which was over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The conclusion was that they had opened a hole into Hell.

[Rassah]

According to legend, in 1989 a team of Russian scientists who were operating under the direction of Dr. Azzacove drilled a hole that was nine miles deep in an unnamed place in Siberia before breaking through into a cavity. Intrigued by this unexpected discovery, they lowered an extremely heat tolerant microphone, along with other sensory equipment, into the well. They listened and recorded (purportedly) the tormented screams of desperate people. The second surprise was the high temperature that they discovered at the earth's center, which was over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The conclusion was that they had opened a hole into Hell.

The temperature at the center of the earth is 10,000 degrees Farenheit, so 2,000 is not surprising. Plus at that temperature and depth, there would be a lot of pressure, and gasses trying to escape, so I wouldn't be surprised if that pressure moving things around sounded like weird noises some might think sound like screams.

Or it might just be a stupid story that a couple of scientists made up, since we have gone to those depths before and haven't had the same experience. (http://xkcd.com/1040/large/)

For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil drill gets oil from about the same depth as that hole the Russians dug, yet we just get oil. The Marianas Trench, the deepest part in the earth, is about as deep too, and we haven't found any "hell" when we went there either. At least James Cameron didn't say anything about seeing hell. Maybe he's hiding something.

[AviThour]

If you believe there is god, you dont need a scientific proof.

[username18333]

According to legend, in 1989 a team of Russian scientists who were operating under the direction of Dr. Azzacove drilled a hole that was nine miles deep in an unnamed place in Siberia before breaking through into a cavity. Intrigued by this unexpected discovery, they lowered an extremely heat tolerant microphone, along with other sensory equipment, into the well. They listened and recorded (purportedly) the tormented screams of desperate people. The second surprise was the high temperature that they discovered at the earth's center, which was over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The conclusion was that they had opened a hole into Hell.

The temperature at the center of the earth is 10,000 degrees Farenheit, so 2,000 is not surprising. Plus at that temperature and depth, there would be a lot of pressure, and gasses trying to escape, so I wouldn't be surprised if that pressure moving things around sounded like weird noises some might think sound like screams.

Or it might just be a stupid story that a couple of scientists made up, since we have gone to those depths before and haven't had the same experience. (http://xkcd.com/1040/large/)

For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil drill gets oil from about the same depth as that hole the Russians dug, yet we just get oil. The Marianas Trench, the deepest part in the earth, is about as deep too, and we haven't found any "hell" when we went there either. At least James Cameron didn't say anything about seeing hell. Maybe he's hiding something.

Here is a recording claiming to contain a copy of those supposed "tormented screams of desperate people."

[nsimmons]

According to legend, in 1989 a team of Russian scientists who were operating under the direction of Dr. Azzacove drilled a hole that was nine miles deep in an unnamed place in Siberia before breaking through into a cavity. Intrigued by this unexpected discovery, they lowered an extremely heat tolerant microphone, along with other sensory equipment, into the well. They listened and recorded (purportedly) the tormented screams of desperate people. The second surprise was the high temperature that they discovered at the earth's center, which was over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The conclusion was that they had opened a hole into Hell.

The temperature at the center of the earth is 10,000 degrees Farenheit, so 2,000 is not surprising. Plus at that temperature and depth, there would be a lot of pressure, and gasses trying to escape, so I wouldn't be surprised if that pressure moving things around sounded like weird noises some might think sound like screams.

Or it might just be a stupid story that a couple of scientists made up, since we have gone to those depths before and haven't had the same experience. (http://xkcd.com/1040/large/)

For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil drill gets oil from about the same depth as that hole the Russians dug, yet we just get oil. The Marianas Trench, the deepest part in the earth, is about as deep too, and we haven't found any "hell" when we went there either. At least James Cameron didn't say anything about seeing hell. Maybe he's hiding something.

Here is a recording claiming to contain a copy of those supposed "tormented screams of desperate people."

I hope you credited Art Bell...