Scientific proof that God exists?

[bl4kjaguar]

To believe in a god you need to abandon general reality and focus on your own.

When we talk about the material world, that is actually a philosophical concept, so in the same way, if I say that 'reality is spiritual', that is also a philosophical concept, and reality itself is not a concept.

"You cannot deny the experiences of others."

[BADecker]

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Milk eh?  Good for you.

The FSM states he will make his body available for nourishment.  I had pasta for lunch.  That proves he exists.  Since there can be only one god, according to you, that means your god cannot exist.

You mistake the devil for the FSM. 

There is no devil - the FSM isn't weak and wouldn't allow it.   

Now bl4kjaguar would suggest that you are on his side - no hierarchy. 

[Vod]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.   

[BADecker]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.



EDIT: Got another cup of coffee.

[Vod]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.

I provided proof the FSM exists.  You claim I confused him with another god, which I didn't.  There can be no other god than the FSM, according to you.

My proof still stands.  

[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.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that. The point is this:

Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.

I disagree.  It is not the simplest explanation as it invokes additional, unnecessary assumptions.  Specifically, in addition to the assumption that the 'psychic' is telling the truth, it introduces the assumption that we should ignore all of the hundreds of times that people have claimed to perform such "supernatural" abilities but have failed or have conclusively been found to be liars.  Since we do have evidence that others who have made similar claims have either failed to prove their claims or have been proven outright liars, we only need to introduce one assumption to reach a conclusion, i.e. that the supposed "psychic" is a liar.

Hey the joint, this is my reply to you

A working explanation must be powerful enough to explain all of the observations (Salient Points) as they are collateral assumptions. It is not enough that an explanation is simple, it must also account for the facts.

[BADecker]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.

I provided proof the FSM exists.  You claim I confused him with another god, which I didn't.  There can be no other god than the FSM, according to you.

My proof still stands.  

No proof when the three of us disagree. 

[the joint]

...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.

Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Science as a method doesn't use ifs.  Ever.  We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it.  There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized.  And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it.  Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems.  I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument.  You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed."  And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

[Vod]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.

I provided proof the FSM exists.  You claim I confused him with another god, which I didn't.  There can be no other god than the FSM, according to you.

My proof still stands.  

No proof when the three of us disagree.  

lol.  You think proof doesn't exist because you will it?  

I've proved the FSM exists in one post.  In over 100 120 pages, you couldn't prove your god exists.  I think you've been schooled.    

[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.

You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that. The point is this:

Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.

I disagree.  It is not the simplest explanation as it invokes additional, unnecessary assumptions.  Specifically, in addition to the assumption that the 'psychic' is telling the truth, it introduces the assumption that we should ignore all of the hundreds of times that people have claimed to perform such "supernatural" abilities but have failed or have conclusively been found to be liars.  Since we do have evidence that others who have made similar claims have either failed to prove their claims or have been proven outright liars, we only need to introduce one assumption to reach a conclusion, i.e. that the supposed "psychic" is a liar.

Hey the joint, this is my reply to you

A working explanation must be powerful enough to explain all of the observations (Salient Points) as they are collateral assumptions. It is not enough that an explanation is simple, it must also account for the facts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  All of that reinforces exactly what I said.  The simplest explanation that explains all of the facts without introducing additional unverifiable assumptions is that he is a liar.  Claiming otherwise introduces additional 'facts' that can't be accounted for, i.e. assumptions.

[BADecker]

...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.

Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Science as a method doesn't use ifs.  Ever.  We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it.  There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized.  And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it.  Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems.  I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument.  You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed."  And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

The so-called "margin-of-error" in Evolution is so gigantic that the only people who could ever believe in Evolution are those who are to simple to understand, those who haven't investigated but simply believe, and those who are compulsively hopeful. The last group have very strong faith in their religion. If they had the same kind of faith in Christianity, they would be some of the top missionaries in the world.

Looking at the science that has the "if"s as a religion, is the only way that it can be viewed when people believe it to be true.

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

 

[Vod]

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

"Jesus" is the name you've given to the FSM?  I can accept that.  

[BADecker]

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.

I provided proof the FSM exists.  You claim I confused him with another god, which I didn't.  There can be no other god than the FSM, according to you.

My proof still stands.  

No proof when the three of us disagree.  

lol.  You think proof doesn't exist because you will it?  

I've proved the FSM exists in one post.  In over 100 120 pages, you couldn't prove your god exists.  I think you've been schooled.    

There's no reason to keep on answering the yammering of the ignorant. Only the ignorant keep on trying.

[Vod]

There's no reason to keep on answering the yammering of the ignorant. Only the ignorant keep on trying.

Awww... don't be butthurt because I proved you wrong.  Unlike your false god, the FSM accepts everyone - even non believers.

Go have some pasta and prove it to yourself! 

[BADecker]

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

"Jesus" is the name you've given to the FSM?  I can accept that.  

Just a little further, now, and you will find out the love that Jesus really has for you.  

[Vod]

Just a little further, now, and you will find out the love that Jesus really has for you.  

I felt it today at lunch.  The FSM filled me up and gave me energy.

I'm glad we were able to agree. 

[BADecker]

Just a little further, now, and you will find out the love that Jesus really has for you.  

I felt it today at lunch.  The FSM filled me up and gave me energy.

I'm glad we were able to agree. 

It's okay. Even the idol worshipers recognize God a little in their idols. 

[the joint]

...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.

Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Science as a method doesn't use ifs.  Ever.  We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it.  There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized.  And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it.  Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems.  I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument.  You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed."  And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

The so-called "margin-of-error" in Evolution is so gigantic that the only people who could ever believe in Evolution are those who are to simple to understand, those who haven't investigated but simply believe, and those who are compulsively hopeful. The last group have very strong faith in their religion. If they had the same kind of faith in Christianity, they would be some of the top missionaries in the world.

Looking at the science that has the "if"s as a religion, is the only way that it can be viewed when people believe it to be true.

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

 

You didn't read or comprehend anything I said until I mentioned Jesus, did you?

You use inductive reasoning every day of your waking life.  If you didn't you wouldn't be able to survive.  Science utilizes inductive reasoning.  Do you know what else requires inductive reasoning?  Here's a list:  

Cooking a meal; constructing a house; putting on clothes; wiping your ass; having manners and learning to be sociable, reading a map; reading a book; understanding a movie; etc.

Basically, inductive reasoning is the reason why every life-enhancing technology exists, why people adapt to social and other environmental conditions, and heck, it even made the paper and the ink that your Bible is made of.

And you want people to convert away from that?  All of that is a product of science (you keep calling it science; it's a product of science in this context).

TL;DR: You already do what science does all the time.  You're taking a hypocritical position.

[Vod]

Just a little further, now, and you will find out the love that Jesus really has for you.  

I felt it today at lunch.  The FSM filled me up and gave me energy.

I'm glad we were able to agree. 

It's okay. Even the idol worshipers recognize God a little in their idols. 

Tell me about it.  How many religions are there in the world?  Luckily, you can worship any god and the FSM will still love you.  

[BADecker]

...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.

Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Science as a method doesn't use ifs.  Ever.  We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it.  There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized.  And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it.  Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems.  I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument.  You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed."  And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

The so-called "margin-of-error" in Evolution is so gigantic that the only people who could ever believe in Evolution are those who are to simple to understand, those who haven't investigated but simply believe, and those who are compulsively hopeful. The last group have very strong faith in their religion. If they had the same kind of faith in Christianity, they would be some of the top missionaries in the world.

Looking at the science that has the "if"s as a religion, is the only way that it can be viewed when people believe it to be true.

As far as what Jesus advised, you are ignorant or you are twisting it intentionally. Jesus was simply suggesting that if you have even this small amount or faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Problem is, that it won't work for faith-science believers, even though their faith is extremely strong. Why not? Because God's faith is way stronger.

 

You didn't read or comprehend anything I said until I mentioned Jesus, did you?

You use inductive reasoning every day of your waking life.  If you didn't you wouldn't be able to survive.  Science utilizes inductive reasoning.  Do you know what else requires inductive reasoning?  Here's a list:  

Cooking a meal; constructing a house; putting on clothes; wiping your ass; having manners and learning to be sociable, reading a map; reading a book; understanding a movie; etc.

Basically, inductive reasoning is the reason why every life-enhancing technology exists, why people adapt to social and other environmental conditions, and heck, it even made the paper and the ink that your Bible is made of.

And you want people to convert away from that?  All of that is a product of science (you keep calling it science; its a product of science in this context).

TL;DR: You already do what science does all the time.  You're taking a hypocritical position.

Why do you keep talking away from the "if"s science? The "if"s are the only thing I am talking about. Where do you find the "if"s in science? In the papers that talk about Evolution and old-age universe. Most of the things that you are speaking about, above, are things that science sees clearly, and I would agree with, if it didn't entangle me in some of the "if"s.