Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decksperiment]

Hey, if you think that's bad, I'm trying to keep up too!!

(you missed BADecker sayin am an athiest, only to THEN say I'm an occultist, which by definition requires a belief in god, so if I'm an occultist, I believe in his god?)

So which is it, AM I an atheist, or do I believe in god? (granting BADecker the right to say I'm an occultist)

[Decksperiment]

I think from now on, to speak your mind regarding your 'god', you must write your version of his 'ineffable' name.. only then should you be viewed as 'worthy' of defending your particular 'god' by taking part in this thread.. but you cant, because you know nothing of said countless 'in-effable' names.. testing testing, I hope your ready..

[Decksperiment]

Haha.. think you can buy mine?

[Decksperiment]

dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

[BADecker]

Am I the only person that can't keep up with anything this guy is saying^^?

Actually, almost anyone can keep up. Decky DOES have a lot of interesting info. You simply have to ferret it out of all the wasted language that he throws in. Sometimes it is fun doing it.

[BADecker]

dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

[Decksperiment]

Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

[lamaze]

I do not need proof.

As per experience I have been over the worst times but God made me who I am today.

That is proof enough I think.

[BADecker]

Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

"Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up."

How high do you want to be built, Decky?

 

EDIT: How does an atheist know that he is an atheist? He doesn't, since he has no proof that God doesn't exist. But, he confirms that God exists by taking on the role of a god when he says that God doesn't exist. In other words, he is placing himself in the position of a god by making a determination that only God can make.

Atheists are ignorant hypocrites, and they don't even know it.

EDIT: If atheists were simply atheists, because nobody told them about God or atheism, they might stand a chance of being atheists. But when they make the claim, they are putting themselves up as a god by have the god-like quality of making some kind of a claim for anything, even for atheism.

[My Name Was Taken]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.

[My Name Was Taken]

Sorry dude, it's one thing to preach, and another to practice, your book means as much as your daily attendance at church, which is probably non-existant making all your bible bashin shit nothing more than a mute point.. nowt mair than shit talkin fi a wannab preist, who knows nothing of getting folks to buy said trash book. Your tbh, fuckin uselss arguments for the SCIENTIFIC proof of god do nothin but make more people say, fuck church.. fuck the bible.. you are a coward who knows when to shut up.. when the rest remind you that your book is nothing but fuckin poison. As can clearly be read in your words. Sittin there thinkin your gods gift to whatever claiming others are occultists.. you cant even recognise athiests DONT believe in god, and occultists DO, so what is it fuckwit, think you can change subject anytime ya want? Thats why i STAY AWAY FROM CHURCH, FOR FEAR OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

"Knowledge puffeth up, but love builds up."

How high do you want to be built, Decky?

 

EDIT: How does an atheist know that he is an atheist? He doesn't, since he has no proof that God doesn't exist. But, he confirms that God exists by taking on the role of a god when he says that God doesn't exist. In other words, he is placing himself in the position of a god by making a determination that only God can make.

Atheists are ignorant hypocrites, and they don't even know it.

EDIT: If atheists were simply atheists, because nobody told them about God or atheism, they might stand a chance of being atheists. But when they make the claim, they are putting themselves up as a god by have the god-like quality of making some kind of a claim for anything, even for atheism.

Denying the existence of god does not make you a god. Your attempt to do semantic gymnastics in order to assert that an atheist not believing in god actually confirms god makes absolutely no sense. That's one of the most absurd lines of logic that has been posted in this thread.

[Decksperiment]

dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

Meaning your word's mean nothing, not just to me, but everyone.. you have zero argument's for the proof of god, consideing your evidence is nothing more than a cleverly written peice of science fiction.. that's so out of date, I'm surprised you aint got food poisoning..

[BADecker]

dear BADecker. Your god's 'ineffable' (spelt correctly for the punctuality insane) name is 'TETRAGRAMMATON.'

What does this mean? If you cannot answer, or choose not to, you have no right to speak of said diety.. since you clearly know nothing of your god, despite your knowledge of a bit of dead tree.. albeit a page..

Often a person's brain uses a three-letter code when speaking between its parts. Speaking spirit to Spirit with God is the thing that is important in life. The language that people use between themselves usually weakens the meanings of the spirit-to-Spirit language.

Meaning your word's mean nothing, not just to me, but everyone.. you have zero argument's for the proof of god, consideing your evidence is nothing more than a cleverly written peice of science fiction.. that's so out of date, I'm surprised you aint got food poisoning..

Wow, Decky. You are getting just like the atheists.

Make a hand. Can't? Well make a blade of grass. No, I don't mean grow one. I mean formulate and manufacture one, and set life to it. Can't? Well, what can you do that is marvelous? Anybody can yammer.

Modern medical research has found methods to manipulate the healing abilities of the body to some extent. They can cut out cancers. They can help bones grow better and stronger after they are broken. They actually have some vaccines that really work. But modern medical science hasn't come close to making a real live hand from scratch. They haven't even found a way to regrow a new one on a person who lost an original.

Why hasn't modern scientific medicine been able to make a hand? So far, it's because the process is way too complicated. In fact, they don't really have a working, feasible process for doing it in mind at all!

Look at the prosthetic hands science has created. The computer controlled prosthetic hands are wonderful. There are even methods coming into being where real bionic hands can feel pressure and heat. Marvelous stuff. Costs billions to develop... especially if you consider all the past research that makes the present research possible.

Yet, an average, healthy person is born with two hands that he/she received for free. Modern science can't make them. But they are given free, naturally.

Nature is way smarter than medical science. In fact, nature is so smart that modern science goes to it just to find out what questions they should ask, so that they can properly review nature to look for answers.

So, how did nature get so smart? I mean, if blades of grass, or even hands, were all the smarter that nature had become, nature would still be smart beyond understanding. After all, science still hasn't fully understood how blades of grass and hands come into being entirely.

But nature didn't stop with blades of grass and hands. Nature was so extremely smart that it produced eyes, and brains, and thousands upon of thousands of species of plants and animals, all of them having marvelous reproductive systems, things that the smartest people are only starting to emulate in the machine shop a little bit today.

How smart is a rock? How smart is entropy? A rock has no smarts or non-smarts. And entropy is the breaking down of the things that smart nature has produced. And we, the product of smart nature, because our brains and minds themselves are products of nature, don't even really know if we won't destroy ourselves off the face of the earth before we have the chance to find out all the marvels of smart nature.

How "dumb" can you smart people get? Here's smart nature doing all kinds of fabulous things that smart people can't even come close to doing, and the smart people are dumb enough to contradict their own dictionary definition of "God," even though they work with the super-smart things of nature that God has produced.

It's gotta be entropy that has made these smart people of science so stupid.

[Decksperiment]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

[the joint]

Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)

With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.

I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context.  But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy.  It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.

Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.

It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.'  Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept.  It simply doesn't work.  Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot.  Would you let me get away with such an analogy?

FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.

So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god?  And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?

The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God.  They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose.  The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.

So yes, it's a bad analogy.  It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground.  You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.

Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.

Not quite.  You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest.

Specifically, I'm making the following points:

1)  There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  

2)  There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.  Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one.  Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god.

3)  The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god.

4)  Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge.  I have never seen a sound argument of this type before.

[BADecker]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

[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.

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.

The assumption that he is a liar is placed in doubt when you consider the Salient Points.

For example, if you assume he is a liar then you are not only proposing a highly elaborate fraud lasting almost 8 years, but you are also proposing that the fraudster would be satisfied receiving no compensation for his work and meticulous research (Salient Point #1). Also, you would be proposing that Salient Point #2 is explained by another party assisting the fraudster, so now you are proposing a conspiracy. To explain Salient Point #4 you would be proposing that the information from the dead chess-player's children was acquired by the aforementioned fraud-ring.

So to summarize, I will quote from the AECES summary of the case:

The combination of the skill of the game plus the correct esoteric data vastly diminishes the potential for explaining the information by fraud as this is likely to have required major collaboration from numerous highly respected people.

So in fact the assumption that Rollans is a liar will produce many collateral assumptions, thus it is far from a simple explanation.

Hey the joint, I hope that you see what I am getting at here, and hopefully you agree that the assumptions that Rollans is a liar is very far from a simple explanation of the evidence. 

[cooldgamer]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

[bl4kjaguar]

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Hey cooldgamer, not to detract from your point, but I was wondering what you think about evidence in favor of correspondence with the dead, as in my above post. Maybe it could be an interesting discussion.   

[BADecker]

Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..

Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.

You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.

As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god.  Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.

Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.

But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.