Scientific proof that God exists?

[Vod]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.   

[the joint]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.   

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics. 

[My Name Was Taken]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.   

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics. 

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

[vokain]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.  

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

History offers perspective, my friend.

The overwhelming majority of modern pharmacy revolves around recreating or trying to induce/stimulate/inhibit what already occurs in nature, typically via proprietary synthetic means because for the most part, patents=monopoly. Pharmacy is a derivative of an ancient study of chemistry termed alchemy. The first pharmacy (as in commercial enterprise) reportedly popped up in Arabia in the 6th century, but one could argue that the local shaman/medicine man/what have you can also be considered a pharmacy in a meaningful sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#History

[My Name Was Taken]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.  

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

History offers perspective, my friend.

The overwhelming majority of modern pharmacy revolves around recreating or trying to induce/stimulate/inhibit what already occurs in nature. Pharmacy is a derivative of an ancient study of chemistry termed alchemy. The first pharmacy reportedly popped up in Arabia in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#History

That's what it was then perhaps but that's not what it is now. Now it's about manipulating molecules to do what they want them to. A lot of our drugs are synthesized out of molecules that do not exist in nature.

[vokain]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.  

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

History offers perspective, my friend.

The overwhelming majority of modern pharmacy revolves around recreating or trying to induce/stimulate/inhibit what already occurs in nature. Pharmacy is a derivative of an ancient study of chemistry termed alchemy. The first pharmacy reportedly popped up in Arabia in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#History

That's what it was then perhaps but that's not what it is now. Now it's about manipulating molecules to do what they want them to. A lot of our drugs are synthesized out of molecules that do not exist in nature.

edited my previous post before your reply posted/after you clicked "quote"
I would argue that synthesized chemicals are generally harder on the body because our body has not evolved to react with synthesized chemicals made via synthetic biochemical pathways (synthetic to me means not arising through biological/chemical evolution, not cognitive). But that's another topic.

The point i'm trying to make here is, just because our drugs are all fancy and made to react with the body a certain way, does not mean it's healthier or better, but that they simply all try to replicate natural process.

[My Name Was Taken]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.  

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

History offers perspective, my friend.

The overwhelming majority of modern pharmacy revolves around recreating or trying to induce/stimulate/inhibit what already occurs in nature. Pharmacy is a derivative of an ancient study of chemistry termed alchemy. The first pharmacy reportedly popped up in Arabia in the 6th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_industry#History

That's what it was then perhaps but that's not what it is now. Now it's about manipulating molecules to do what they want them to. A lot of our drugs are synthesized out of molecules that do not exist in nature.

edited my previous post before your reply posted/after you clicked "quote"
I would argue that synthesized chemicals are generally harder on the body because our body has not evolved to react with synthesized chemicals made via synthetic biochemical pathways (synthetic to me means not arising through biological/chemical evolution, not cognitive). But that's another topic.

You could argue that. I won't agree or disagree without seeing some actual data on it. But you're right, it seems besides the point.

[nsimmons]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

[Vod]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

[nsimmons]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Pastafarians?

[My Name Was Taken]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

I thought of this thread when I saw that! But then I figured it was not worth my time to post it. Fundamentalists aren't concerned with facts so much as beliefs. This will change nothing here.

[the joint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

[the joint]

These texts go deeper into Life, the Universe, and Everything, than just morality.

Not really.  When the bible was written people didn't know very much about the universe or anything else.  

I actually seriously doubt this idea.  People 2000 years ago weren't dumb, and I'm guessing that, much in the same way that blind or deaf people compensate for their handicap in other ways, people likely had strong methods of learning and interpreting information in the absence of the scientific method.

Take, for example, the fact that the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained by Western researchers who obtain information about the medical properties of various plants from indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world.  These cultures don't utilize the scientific method but resort to more esoteric means of learning. The mystery as to how these cultures gained the knowledge is baffling to many professional academics.  

I dispute your "fact." I think the overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical information is obtained through chemistry and research, not from information from the medical properties of various plants used be indigenous tribal cultures in isolated parts of the world. I think you've taken a few isolated cases of that happening, and are now presenting them to be the norm. They're not.

I pulled that fact from The Cosmic Serpent which is a book written by a Stanford anthropologist who lived with these tribes for many months.  He was very skeptical at first but was convinced by the end that the means of knowledge acquisition adopted by these tribes is stunningly valid and accurate.  Specially he notes the number of Amazonian plant species (over 20,000) from which the tribes are somehow able to understand which plants ingredients to combine in order to produce a specific effect, such as in the discovery of MAOIs which are necessary in order for DMT drinks, e.g. ayuhuasca, to produce their desired hallucinogenic effects.  The chance randomly selecting the correct plants to combine is insanely improbable.

Edit:  Briefly edited for sloppiness due to iPhone

[(oYo)]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

[BADecker]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion 

[(oYo)]

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion  

Now? It always has been. Religion couldn't exist without it.  

[Vod]

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion 

What if it is true?  What if there is only a 0.01% chance there is a FSM?  You're risking your eternal soul by not believing. 

Why take the chance?   

[the joint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

[My Name Was Taken]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

Now even "Stupidity" is a religion 

We've been trying to tell you that all along.

[(oYo)]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html

I wonder if other religions, like the flying spaghetti monster, will follow his lead?

Vod, I have to argue against you here.  The FSM is in no way a valid counter argument to the existence of a monotheistic god.

The FSM is meant to be an analogue of a polytheistic god, not a monotheistic one.  There's a huge difference between the two.  Same thing goes for the teapot orbiting Venus.

Could you source your argument for me? I couldn't find anywhere that the FSM is a polytheistic god. As a matter of fact, what I found seems to describe it as being a monotheistic one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster