Scientific proof that God exists?

[Lethn]

And as with all online discussions about religion, it ends with irrational flaming and potshots

That's because that's all the other side has at it's disposal in reality, they use either threats of violence or insults to get their way when the science isn't on their side.

[BADecker]

Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.

Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?

Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?

...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever.  It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics:  1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking.

Care to provide justification for your statements?  I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you.

Care to try again?

Premise 1: Insert here
Premise 2: Insert here
Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here
Therefore:  Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs"

There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion.  If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument.

Make my day

Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion.

[BADecker]

And as with all online discussions about religion, it ends with irrational flaming and potshots

That's because that's all the other side has at it's disposal in reality, they use either threats of violence or insults to get their way when the science isn't on their side.

I've been noticing that about a lot of atheists when they find out that their science is religion.   

[BADecker]

Hey! We're on a good run here. Don't cop out. We have a chance at bringing this thread way up in page numbers.

 

[BADecker]

How predictable. All I have to do is ask you not to cop out, and now I can go take a nap. 

[tattooist]

[BADecker]

Come on, guys. I know nobody likes to be proven wrong. But look. It's for your own good.

Consider. Even if science proved that the universe was billions of years old, and that evolution was the REAL thing, and that there was "pure random," and that all the marvels of the universe were really just happenstance, well, guess what? You'd never be able to understand it all anyway. It would take a computer the size of the earth to understand it all. You'd still be living on faith, even if you thought you knew that science had proven it all.

The point? Don't feel so bad that science is the weakest of the religions. Rather, come on over to the strongest religion - the Christian religion. After all, people simply aren't made to live without religion. Make it easy on yourselves. Convert!

[BADecker]

Oh, thanks. I had almost given up on you all, and gone to take a nap.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9446969#msg9446969

[tattooist]

[BADecker]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. That's all the higher sciences have. They don't even have witnesses.

Perfect love drives out fear. Come on over and stop being afraid. Convert to Christianity, and find the love so you can cast out the fear.

[tattooist]

[BADecker]

Hey! We're getting some pictures that are almost as good as that Russian picture thread. 

[RodeoX]

So now we have given up on scientific proof and trying to argue that because science is complicated your better off believing in fairy tales. No thanks. I do understand science and find provable answers to my questions. Religion is dying out for a reason. Each year religion has to concede more ground to science because it's assertions become less believable.  

For example, 30-40 years ago religious leaders refused to believe in dinosaurs. It was described as a hoax by scientists. Today that argument is so preposterous that no one would dare make it. Even evolution is slowly being accepted. Now some creationists talk of "micro-evolution". A made up idea to reconcile the obvious process of evolution that can been seen in a simple school experiment. The more you know and understand the world around you, the harder it is to believe in unicorns, sea monsters, and gods.

[bl4kjaguar]

I never asked that anyone read my bible or try my God, so you cannot claim that I am a hypocrite, period.

Of course you are a hypocrite.

You don't even follow your own god's commandments.   

Open and shut, period.

Yeah? Where do you see it defined that insolvency is the same as theft? I await your answer!

[bl4kjaguar]

"do as I say, not as I do".  

Yes, this is an axiomatic point, very relevant to talk of "god".

All religions are created to establish a hierarchical structure.

"Hierarchical structure" is the way everything works. Think of how your body would function if there wasn't the hierarchical structure of your brain ruling over it. In fact, you'd be dead without hierarchical structure.

Christ never set up a church or a hierarchy.

Hierarchy is man's creation, not God's. In the eyes of God, we are all one. Everything--rocks, trees, people--all, is SACRED.

There are no sacrosanct hierarchies in the realms of God and Hosts.

If you claim to be of the Spiritual Hierarchy then I believe we both know from which side of the lamp you come from.

Why would man need go to another and higher level of joy and life if there were such horrendous lies awaiting him?

[username18333]

Come on, guys. I know nobody likes to be proven wrong. But look. It's for your own good.

Consider. Even if science proved that the universe was billions of years old, and that evolution was the REAL thing, and that there was "pure random," and that all the marvels of the universe were really just happenstance, well, guess what? You'd never be able to understand it all anyway. It would take a computer the size of the earth to understand it all. You'd still be living on faith, even if you thought you knew that science had proven it all.

The point? Don't feel so bad that science is the weakest of the religions. Rather, come on over to the strongest religion - the Christian religion. After all, people simply aren't made to live without religion. Make it easy on yourselves. Convert!

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.

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

Everything could exist.

[tattooist]

[the joint]

Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.

Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?

Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?

...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever.  It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics:  1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking.

Care to provide justification for your statements?  I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you.

Care to try again?

Premise 1: Insert here
Premise 2: Insert here
Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here
Therefore:  Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs"

There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion.  If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument.

Make my day

Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion.

No.  Here's the problem you're having:  Logic is something you use regardless of whether you're talking about science or the Bible.  Accordingly, there are logical rules to be followed in order to demonstrate a sound conclusion.  The deductive argument template I've presented you with is recognized globally as a valid format for presenting an argument.  The reason behind using it is because it allows you to show how your premises support your conclusion.  If you can't soundly support your conclusion in such a format, it means there are gaps in your reasoning, or at the very least there are gaps in your explanation.

That's why I gave you the template to work with.  Since you claim to know this stuff front to back, it should be no challenge for you to list your premises in such a way that they undeniably lead to your conclusion.

So far, you have not been able to demonstrate your ability to do this.  Accordingly, since you fail to present a concise, succinct argument when challenged, we assume you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks which are globally recognized as the absolute weakest type of argument as it doesn't even address the topic whatsoever.

If you can't formulate a deductive argument to support your conclusion that "science is weakest," then you must concede to our superior arguments. No amount of smiley faces, smug-but-ignorant passive aggression, etc. will make you any more right.  But I suspect being right isn't as much of a priority to you as simply not wanting to admit the possibility that you come off as intellectually retarded.

[cooldgamer]

Come on, guys. I know nobody likes to be proven wrong. But look. It's for your own good.

Consider. Even if science proved that the universe was billions of years old, and that evolution was the REAL thing, and that there was "pure random," and that all the marvels of the universe were really just happenstance, well, guess what? You'd never be able to understand it all anyway. It would take a computer the size of the earth to understand it all. You'd still be living on faith, even if you thought you knew that science had proven it all.

The point? Don't feel so bad that science is the weakest of the religions. Rather, come on over to the strongest religion - the Christian religion. After all, people simply aren't made to live without religion. Make it easy on yourselves. Convert!

So in other words we don't know everything, so toss all that you do know aside and believe in my magical sky daddy.  People can live just fine without religion, thank you

[bl4kjaguar]

NO EVIDENCE ALLOWED IN THIS CASE

Objection!

40 factual case studies.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

Starting with case #1:
http://www.aeces.info/Top40/Cases_8-25/case24_soulmate.pdf

This is from Sam Harris, regarding Ian Stevenson:
"Either he is a victim of truly elaborate fraud, or something interesting is going on,"

"I cannot categorically dismiss their contents in the way that I can dismiss the claims of religious dogmatists."

So it is, the case continues.