Scientific proof that God exists?

[tattooist]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

[bl4kjaguar]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

[Vod]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.   

[RodeoX]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

[picolo]

-Cambrian Explosion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
-Who created the Univers?

[bl4kjaguar]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

[Vod]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I can explain it with one word.   Liar.

[bl4kjaguar]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I can explain it with one word.   Liar.

Professor Eisenbeiss is a liar for sure? Which observations support that claim?

Now let's see how you avoid my questions...

[tattooist]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

And they took their time....." and so the entire match took 7 years and 8 months. "

[RodeoX]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

There is nothing in there that comes close to science. These are well know parlor tricks. You really should look at what the amazing Randy can do. He will show you how to do this. In science the test would be double blind and not a set of questions you take home and return months later.
A telling clue is that NEVER in the history of the world has someone shown the ability to communicate with the dead in a controlled experiment. Those who have tried may have believed they could do it, but when they get to the lab they claim that "the psychic energy is wrong" or some such nonsense. If someone could do it in scientific experiment it would be huge. Just one time.

[BADecker]

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.

Science, at its core, is so complex that nobody can hold it in his mind. Therefore, those who hold it, hold it by faith, except for the little part of it that they might understand, relative to itself. What this might mean is, simply, that if the traditional religions of the past are losing believers to the religion of science, they are only converting to a different religion.

Your second statement means almost nothing. It's like saying that all scientists believe in evolution. All scientists do not believe in evolution. Why? Because some other scientists try to classify all things under the term "evolution," thereby proving that, at best, that they are making a generalization that is entirely unfounded scientifically. That's why Evolution is still a theory. But shouldn't be even a theory, because it has been proven wrong and inconclusive so many times in so many ways, and actually has been proven to be impossible probability-wise.

Unfortunately, the lie of Evolution has penetrated the minds of so many people, that it is a reasonably stable political thing, even though it doesn't exist as an actuality and reality.

[bl4kjaguar]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

There is nothing in there that comes close to science. These are well know parlor tricks. You really should look at what the amazing Randy can do. He will show you how to do this. In science the test would be double blind and not a set of questions you take home and return months later.
A telling clue is that NEVER in the history of the world has someone shown the ability to communicate with the dead in a controlled experiment. Those who have tried may have believed they could do it, but when they get to the lab they claim that "the psychic energy is wrong" or some such nonsense. If someone could do it in scientific experiment it would be huge. Just one time.

Eisenbeiss conducted an experiment by way of correspondence. If you are alleging an elaborate fraud, then where is the evidence for what you propose? There is none, only your presumption that this is impossible from which you deduce that it must be a trick.

It was not a set of questions, but quite the opposite. You have misread the Salient Point #4.

[BADecker]

"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?

You've never read The Acts of the Apostles?

Spiritual hierarchy is between the person and God. Mostly it is between God viewing the soul and spirit of a person, and God judging the person.

[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?

You've never read The Acts of the Apostles?

Spiritual hierarchy is between the person and God. Mostly it is between God viewing the soul and spirit of a person, and God judging the person.

No I have not because Christ told me to beware of Pharisees like Saul of Tarsus (in Matthew 23) and I have no evidence that Saul was a "follower of Christ".

Hierarchy is not "the way everything works". It does not work that way in the higher realms.

[the joint]

first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

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

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

There is nothing in there that comes close to science. These are well know parlor tricks. You really should look at what the amazing Randy can do. He will show you how to do this. In science the test would be double blind and not a set of questions you take home and return months later.
A telling clue is that NEVER in the history of the world has someone shown the ability to communicate with the dead in a controlled experiment. Those who have tried may have believed they could do it, but when they get to the lab they claim that "the psychic energy is wrong" or some such nonsense. If someone could do it in scientific experiment it would be huge. Just one time.

Or it could be even more problematic.  Assume for a second that communication with the "dead" is possible, but only in rare situations.  If it is possible, but not possible all the time, this would fall beyond the scope of science anyway as consistent replication is necessary to build scientific rigor.  I'm not stating this as an argument in support of communication with the dead, but rather as a reminder that there does exist phenomena which is either too rare, too large, or too small that is beyond the scope of pure science.  Unfortunately, those who assert specific phenomena in the absence of their own experience will use this as a crutch in support of their assertion, which is essentially a guess, anyway. Speaking from my own experiences with meditation, I believe I have directly experienced that which scientists would claim is unfounded based upon a lack of evidence (i.e. the expansion of my consciousness to occupy a region of spacetime that extended beyond my physical body), and due to my undisciplined meditation routine, I would not be able to confidently replicate my experiences at will in a controlled setting, though I have replicated the experience on three distinct occasions.

Nonetheless, Occam's Razor is still a good rule to follow in these types of debates.

[RodeoX]

Science, at its core, is so complex that nobody can hold it in his mind. Therefore, those who hold it, hold it by faith, except for the little part of it that they might understand, relative to itself. What this might mean is, simply, that if the traditional religions of the past are losing believers to the religion of science, they are only converting to a different religion.

Your second statement means almost nothing. It's like saying that all scientists believe in evolution. All scientists do not believe in evolution. Why? Because some other scientists try to classify all things under the term "evolution," thereby proving that, at best, that they are making a generalization that is entirely unfounded scientifically. That's why Evolution is still a theory. But shouldn't be even a theory, because it has been proven wrong and inconclusive so many times in so many ways, and actually has been proven to be impossible probability-wise.

Unfortunately, the lie of Evolution has penetrated the minds of so many people, that it is a reasonably stable political thing, even though it doesn't exist as an actuality and reality.

I have to disagree brother.   I am an evolutionary biologist and I totally understand the process. Science is not a mystery to me, it is simple logic.

[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.

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.

Precisely the thing that I am talking about with regard to science. Certainly there are parts of science that are logical and actual. But there are other parts that might seem logical and actual in some ways, but haven't been proven yet.

This is the exact way that virtually all religions work. They all have something that makes sense, is logical. In fact, most of them have many things that are logical. But they, also, have the parts that are not proven, and possibly cannot be proven. People believe these unproven parts on faith.

Consider. If you are a man of science, you know which areas of your field of science are proven, and which areas need more investigation. But, when it comes to an area of science that is not your field, what do you do? You look at the credibility of the scientists that have done work in those areas. Then you either believe them, or you don't. Science is a faith thing. It is religion.

When you scientifically study the Bible and its history of coming together, you find that it is an impossible-to-exist book. If you haven't done the studies yourself, you either believe, or you don't believe those who have done the studies. It's called religion.

Science is too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. It is a religion.

[Decio]

[bl4kjaguar]

Science is a faith thing. It is religion.

You need to read Spencer to understand the true relationship between Science and Religion. Because you have not yet figured it out yourself...

[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!

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

This isn't the idea at all. The whole thing is based on the exact thing you said "... all that you do know ..."

Science is constantly reviewing and updating what has been learned. For example, there was a time that quantum mechanics wasn't understood by many, and was accepted by few. There are still those in the scientific world, few that they may be at this stage of the game, who still don't accept quantum mechanics.

If science ever becomes big enough that it can prove or disprove God, nobody will be able to use it for such, because God is so complex and beyond anything that science could ever do, that science might as well forget it.

In addition, this:

Precisely the thing that I am talking about with regard to science. Certainly there are parts of science that are logical and actual. But there are other parts that might seem logical and actual in some ways, but haven't been proven yet.

This is the exact way that virtually all religions work. They all have something that makes sense, is logical. In fact, most of them have many things that are logical. But they, also, have the parts that are not proven, and possibly cannot be proven. People believe these unproven parts on faith.

Consider. If you are a man of science, you know which areas of your field of science are proven, and which areas need more investigation. But, when it comes to an area of science that is not your field, what do you do? You look at the credibility of the scientists that have done work in those areas. Then you either believe them, or you don't. Science is a faith thing. It is religion.

When you scientifically study the Bible and its history of coming together, you find that it is an impossible-to-exist book. If you haven't done the studies yourself, you either believe, or you don't believe those who have done the studies. It's called religion.

Science is too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. It is a religion.