Scientific proof that God exists?

[cooldgamer]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

But it is evidence that there is something that has God-like qualities, even if it is only a living, thinking, virtually breathing universe.

...what?  The universe is extremely complex, but that's not a 'god-like' quality

[BADecker]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

But it is evidence that there is something that has God-like qualities, even if it is only a living, thinking, virtually breathing universe.

...what?  The universe is extremely complex, but that's not a 'god-like' quality

Okay, here it is again.

Man looks at universe and sees complexity.
Man copies universe and makes complexity.
Mans' complexity is not as complex as universe' complexity.
Man is intelligent, having a great mind.
Why is not the universe that developed the complexity that man uses, and greater, not intelligent? with even a greater mind?

Is it the universe that is the mind? Is there a universe Creator? We simply don't know scientifically. Yet ALL of our "smarts" come from observing and copying the universe in one way or another.

It is the idea that there is NOT a God that is starting to not make sense.

[cooldgamer]

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

Nope, we've gone over this a ton already.  Complex life is in no way proof for a god.  Something more complex would have had to make your god, and on and on and on...

You know, you have a way of twisting things. You're statement, above, "Complex life is in no way proof for a god," is a totally acceptable statement. But you haven't ever answered the question. What kind of evidence is it? You keep saying "proof" when we all know there isn't any proof. Does lack of proof mean that there can't be any evidence whatsoever?

The idea of something making God is unfounded. Why? Because we don't know enough about God from the evidence to suggest that He has any kind of need for being made. And the evidence is so inconclusive that there is no way to say that He WAS made.

It's not evidence for a god either.  Same difference, used the wrong word.

But it is evidence that there is something that has God-like qualities, even if it is only a living, thinking, virtually breathing universe.

...what?  The universe is extremely complex, but that's not a 'god-like' quality

Okay, here it is again.

Man looks at universe and sees complexity.
Man copies universe and makes complexity.
Mans' complexity is not as complex as universe' complexity.
Man is intelligent, having a great mind.
Why is not the universe that developed the complexity that man uses, and greater, not intelligent? with even a greater mind?

Is it the universe that is the mind? Is there a universe Creator? We simply don't know scientifically. Yet ALL of our "smarts" come from observing and copying the universe in one way or another.

It is the idea that there is NOT a God that is starting to not make sense.

Here we go in this endless loop again.  Something more complex had to have created your god, to have created the universe, to have created us... you're simply stopping the chain of needing more complexity and saying 'because god'. 

I never claimed to know if there is a god, I simply counter your arguments that there is proof/evidence for one.  I choose not to believe based on a lack of evidence.  There are some people that believe there is a higher power since we don't know for certain, and that is a respectable position.  What is not, on the other hand, is believing that you know who the one true creator is based on a book thousands of years old and you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe in him.

The idea that there is not a god makes no less sense than the idea that there is one.

[the joint]

I agree with much of this, maybe most of it. A couple of questions that I have revolve around these points.

The take-home message from everything written to this point is this:  It's a terribly unsound conclusion to deny of the existence of God because of a lack of evidence, because whether or not God exists there will (and can) never be any evidence for it.

My question here is, can't there be some evidence, even though it is not conclusive evidence?

There is no possible way, however, to imagine a scenario in which we would know for certain by way of observation that a monotheistic god exists, so looking to 'a posteriori' knowledge for an answer will never get you anywhere.  So, how do we determine if a monotheistic god exists?  Well, we can look to 'a priori' knowledge for an answer.  'A priori" knowledge is independent of observation, and therefore is grounded in the abstract.  A math proof lends to 'a priori' knowledge.  A sound logical argument lends to 'a prior' knowledge.  Axioms are 'a priori' knowledge.

Isn't the machine quality of the universe and life, especially when the "machinery" is advanced as it appears, and there is the presence of simple, almost non-machinery as well, a consideration?

The fact that there are tremendously "advanced" forms of complex machinery (life) in the universe...

and the fact that there is absolutely nothing but pure guesswork regarding how these advanced "machines" came about (because they are so advanced that we simply don't have enough of a handle on the idea to do more than guess)...

combined with our own active operating machine making activities that show that (usually) the more advanced machine makers among us make more advanced machines - remember, all of our machine-making abilities come from what we observe and use as already found in the universe, and we are really only scratching the surface in the amounts and ways that we use the machines of the universe...

at this stage of our development, wouldn't this be evidence for a real God?

As you say, it wouldn't be proof. Yet I would consider it to be a gigantically large chunk of evidence, evidence so great as to get me to start examining any records that I could to see if the "probable" God hadn't left us a more direct and clearer record of Himself.

Consider how great the nervous system and brain combination of a human being are from the Isaac Asimov sci-fi quote at: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761592.msg9656564#msg9656564 .

There's evidence, but what are you evidencing?  A lack of absolutely conclusive evidence for something means that you can't conclusively decipher whether it or does not constitute evidence for whatever you think it might be.

Imagine for example that every moment of your real life is actually an advanced computer simulation, and then outside of that simulation you're some brain in a jar hooked up to wires that's transmitting the simulation.  If that were the case, then perhaps everything that you evidence now is the product of a computer programmer.  But, since there is no way to observe outside the simulation while being in the simulation, you have no idea whether you're evidencing the product of a programmer, God, or any other number of things.  However, the programmer can conclusively state that everything you evidence is part of simulation, and this is because his scope of observation is greater than the entirety of the simulation itself.  But since the scope of observation of a participant in the simulation is contained within that simulation, he will never have access to evidence from which he can draw conclusions about the true nature of the simulation.

[BADecker]

Here we go in this endless loop again.  Something more complex had to have created your god, to have created the universe, to have created us... you're simply stopping the chain of needing more complexity and saying 'because god'.  

Why do you think that "Something more complex had to have created your god," when we don't know enough about God, or anything potentially outside of our universe? Is it simply because you say so? Are you god enough that you just know it?

I never claimed to know if there is a god, I simply counter your arguments that there is proof/evidence for one.  I choose not to believe based on a lack of evidence.

This is really great. Not many people can believe in much of anything without some kind of evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence that I have presented, especially since the evidence incorporates the whole scientific realm of man?

 There are some people that believe there is a higher power since we don't know for certain, and that is a respectable position.  What is not, on the other hand, is believing that you know who the one true creator is based on a book thousands of years old and you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe in him.

The people who study the historical and traditional record about the Bible, have come to the conclusion that it cannot exist as it does. You can extrapolate for yourself what this means.

The idea that there is not a god makes no less sense than the idea that there is one.

Yet, since the greatest evidence - that which I have presented in my previous post above - suggests that there is a way high higher intelligence than man, the only two ways to make the idea of there not being a God to have any strength are: 1) prove there is no God; 2) formulate a religion around pure atheism.

[cooldgamer]

Here we go in this endless loop again.  Something more complex had to have created your god, to have created the universe, to have created us... you're simply stopping the chain of needing more complexity and saying 'because god'.  

Why do you think that "Something more complex had to have created your god," when we don't know enough about God, or anything potentially outside of our universe? Is it simply because you say so? Are you god enough that you just know it?

I never claimed to know if there is a god, I simply counter your arguments that there is proof/evidence for one.  I choose not to believe based on a lack of evidence.

This is really great. Not many people can believe in much of anything without some kind of evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence that I have presented, especially since the evidence incorporates the whole scientific realm of man?

 There are some people that believe there is a higher power since we don't know for certain, and that is a respectable position.  What is not, on the other hand, is believing that you know who the one true creator is based on a book thousands of years old and you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe in him.

The people who study the historical and traditional record about the Bible, have come to the conclusion that it cannot exist as it does. You can extrapolate for yourself what this means.

The idea that there is not a god makes no less sense than the idea that there is one.

Yet, since the greatest evidence - that which I have presented in my previous post above - suggests that there is a way high higher intelligence than man, the only two ways to make the idea of there not being a God to have any strength are: 1) prove there is no God; 2) formulate a religion around pure atheism.

You can't make our position have to abide by one standard and then say yours doesn't.  There may be some sort of a higher power that doesn't abide by these for all we know, but there is absolutely no proof of that.  'Goddditit!' is not a valid argument no matter how many times you repeat it

No scientific evidence so far proves god.  The Joint made a good point saying that some things could be considered evidence, but anything can be interpreted anyhow if you take a narrow snippet of it instead of the big picture.

There is no way to validate what is written in the bible, which is the only place you could source these 'impossible to exist' claims (although I have a feeling if I researched the specifics it would have already been debunked).  Spiderman comics don't prove that Spiderman exists, The Bible doesn't prove that God exists.

You cannot disprove god, and I never claimed to be able to.  Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a diety until we are presented with something that proves otherwise.  If you claim to know for certain that there is no god that is just as ignorant as claiming to know for certain that there is one.

[ObscureBean]

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

Unfortunately such a theory can never come to exist, at least not in the sense you're alluding to. At best, you'll get the snake to eat it's own tail which is always acceptable assuming you're 100% innocently content with your theory of theories. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits. The 'everything' that your theory encompasses will always be what 'everything' is to you and not necessarily what 'everything' is.
It should also be noted that if you have not given yourself up completely to your own theory, something that theoretically would only be achievable through complete innocence, then you're back to square one with the original feeling of inadequacy that pushed you to look for a theory of everything in the first place.

[bl4kjaguar]

And when we look at life in detail, we find certain characteristics that certainly point to natural selection - ways in which we are flawed by evolution.

It would be dishonest to fail to mention the characteristics that certainly DO NOT point to natural selection. It is only fair that our discussion incorporates all of the biological facts.

Evidence for Creation by Outside Intervention

Darwinists, Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are unable to explain anomalies in the emergence of domesticated plants, animals and humans.

Firstly, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Secondly, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Thirdly, the humans alive at that time were primitive barbarians. Fourthly, in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model.

In short, there is not a snowball's chance that this happened as botanists claim it did.

From what I can gather, the guy who wrote this is comparing modern domesticated plants with older wild plants, and saying that there was a very drastic jump between the two. Is he implying that, rather than an "intelligent designer", there was an "intelligent tweaker" that changed the plants very quickly or created new plants alongside the wild ones that already existed? It's a poorly written article in my opinion, I'm finding it hard to see the points the author tries to make (although they may be valid).

I shall have another look in the morning, I'd appreciate a more coherent source if you have one, cheers  

The author's thesis should be considered; he shows you that "it can be shown that You Know What has the widest array of facts on its side and has the best chance of being proved correct in the end" and "Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm."

[the joint]

Instead, I think a better approach would be to start with a theory of theories, as such a theory would explain not only all other theories that have, are, or ever will be, but also itself.   Such a theory could never be superseded or dismissed by any other, since any other theory that attempts to explain the 'theory of theories' would actually be that same theory!

Unfortunately such a theory can never come to exist, at least not in the sense you're alluding to. At best, you'll get the snake to eat it's own tail which is always acceptable assuming you're 100% innocently content with your theory of theories. The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits. The 'everything' that your theory encompasses will always be what 'everything' is to you and not necessarily what 'everything' is.
It should also be noted that if you have not given yourself up completely to your own theory, something that theoretically would only be achievable through complete innocence, then you're back to square one with the original feeling of inadequacy that pushed you to look for a theory of everything in the first place.

Great response.

You mention:

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is this: An ultimate theory that apprehends all other theories will always be bound by theorist's/designer's own limits.

Correct, but this isn't necessarily a problem.  All a limit suggests is that it's the best that we can possibly do, and so if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.  However, you seem to claim that such a theory will introduce an unsolvable paradox in which the theory both explains itself but does yield enough explanatory power to explain itself.  For this, I'll respond by quoting Christopher Langan:

How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality?  There may be a way.  For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists).  Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself.  In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies.  Then we could add an instructive twist.  Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic.  By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.

[ObscureBean]

if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.

Not possible. This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.

How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality?  There may be a way.  For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists).  Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself.  In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies.  Then we could add an instructive twist.  Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic.  By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.

Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here

[the joint]

if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.

Not possible. This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.

How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality?  There may be a way.  For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists).  Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself.  In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies.  Then we could add an instructive twist.  Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic.  By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.

Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here

First, if anything is real enough to be considered real, then it must be a part of the real Universe.  To that extent, reality is the only thing relevant to us and the only thing we should care about, and it's nonsensical speculation to discuss what, if anything, could exist beyond the real Universe that could provide sufficient explanatory power to explain the real Universe.

So, what choice do we have other than to describe reality in terms of itself?  Consider that we are real beings theorizing about reality as a whole or about real parts of the whole.  Accordingly, all theories are already self-referential in terms of reality, but only vary in terms of their level of generality.

The theory posited by Langan (simplified) is that the Universe is essentially a self-reifying theory.  So far as I've been able to explore it, it's a sound theory.  You can find it at www.ctmu.org.

[the joint]

if we can identify what that limit actually is, we will have a theory that is at the highest possible level of generality.

Not possible. This limit only exists once you become aware of it. Attempts to contain this limit within a binding set of laws/definitions only lead to perpetual self-questioning and is not recommended lest you should go off on a tangent unbeknownst to yourself.

How, then, can we ever form a true picture of reality?  There may be a way.  For example, we could begin with the premise that such a picture exists, if only as a “limit” of theorization (ignoring for now the matter of showing that such a limit exists).  Then we could educe categorical relationships involving the logical properties of this limit to arrive at a description of reality in terms of reality itself.  In other words, we could build a self-referential theory of reality whose variables represent reality itself, and whose relationships are logical tautologies.  Then we could add an instructive twist.  Since logic consists of the rules of thought, i.e. of mind, what we would really be doing is interpreting reality in a generic theory of mind based on logic.  By definition, the result would be a cognitive-theoretic model of the universe.

Regarding the above quote, I've never heard of this guy and I don't want to be rude but right off the bat there are so many things inherently wrong with his proposition that I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that any theory that resorts to 'logical tautologies' for support is a blatant display of desperation. I must say however, that the last line of his text (due to the use of these words 'cognitive, theoretic') paints a slightly more humble picture of the thought processes at play here

You're incorrect when you state it's not possible to prove that a limit of theorization exists and what it might be.  We've already demonstrated it's possible.  As an analogy, draw a tesseract on a sheet of paper and you gain insight into the limits of 3-dimensional spacetime.  The method for exploring these limits involves invoking a higher-language to discuss lower-order languages.  This higher-order language would be hologrammatically the same, but with total syntactic precedence over all lower-order languages.  The reason we can draw a tesseract at all as a model of a 4th-dimensional object is because we invoked our own higher-order language.  In other words, we assumed the vantage point of a 5th-dimensional being observing a 4th-dimensional object in the same way that a 3rd-dimensional being observes a 2nd-dimensional model of a 4th-dimensional object.

So a theory of theories requires a 'prime' language, so-to-speak, which would be hologrammatically the same as all lower-order languages but infinitely greater in that all lower-order syntax conforms to syntactic precedents set by the 'prime' language.

[BADecker]

You can't make our position have to abide by one standard and then say yours doesn't.  There may be some sort of a higher power that doesn't abide by these for all we know, but there is absolutely no proof of that.  'Goddditit!' is not a valid argument no matter how many times you repeat it

I didn't mean to use different standards. And I don't know that I did. The evidences existing in the universe suggest that God exists way more than they suggest that He doesn't exist. It isn't because I say it. It is simply found in the ways that the universe works.

A simple allegory might be, if you saw smoke way off in the distance, it would suggest that there was fire way off in the distance. But it might be a volcano. Or it might not be smoke, but only a dust cloud that happened to look like smoke. Evidence for fire, but no proof of fire.

However, as the smoke was simply stated above, it would suggest fire way more than a lake. There might be a lake there. But the smoke doesn't suggest it. Until we get there, we won't really know. But if we want to surmise about it, the conclusion would be fire.

In my previous posts about the machine-like quality of the universe, all I am saying is that machines have makers. The machine-like quality of the universe suggests a maker way more than anything else. And the maker of anything as great as our universe would fit the definition of "God." Until we get there, we won't know proof positive.

No scientific evidence so far proves god.  The Joint made a good point saying that some things could be considered evidence, but anything can be interpreted anyhow if you take a narrow snippet of it instead of the big picture.

Yes. Now if you could only apply that kind of thinking to yourself. I mean, how much bigger can the picture get than the universe?

There is no way to validate what is written in the bible, which is the only place you could source these 'impossible to exist' claims (although I have a feeling if I researched the specifics it would have already been debunked).  Spiderman comics don't prove that Spiderman exists, The Bible doesn't prove that God exists.

Perhaps there is no way to validate the Bible. But there are methods that have been used to almost validate it. And the methods used validate the Bible way more than scientific experiments validate evolution. Why? When you consider all the historical and traditional info surrounding the Bible, you come up with a book that can't exist as the Bible exists. Yet the Bible exists all over the world, in many translations, and is believed by millions. No other religious writing carries anywhere near that kind of combined strength.

Scientific experiments that seem to validate evolution, either validate other ideas that are non-evolution ideas as well, or they are completely non-practical for fitting in the way the universe operates, making them lab experiments only.

There are so many strange and marvelous things in the universe, that something like Spiderman might exist, even though the comic books don't prove him.

You cannot disprove god, and I never claimed to be able to.  Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in a diety until we are presented with something that proves otherwise.  If you claim to know for certain that there is no god that is just as ignorant as claiming to know for certain that there is one.

Someone might say, "I don't know if God exists, and I don't know if He doesn't exist." This isn't atheism. Atheism is believing God doesn't exist. Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t for the definition.

Since we don't have scientific proof that God DOES exists, and we don't have scientific proof that He DOESN'T exist, believers IN God, and believers IN NO God are simply opposed religions.

If you don't want to be in a religion, stop believing that God doesn't exist. Simply don't believe either way. At least, stop expressing that you believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism is a religion even though the atheists don't realize it.

[BADecker]

Maybe if we start finding out about math, we can start to prove or disprove God, and a whole lot of other things.

From http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/167014-2014-11-26-the-baffling-and-beautiful-wormhole-between-branches-of-math.htm

What's the deal with Euler's identity? Basically, it's an equation about numbers—specifically, those elusive constants π and e. Both are "transcendental" quanti­ties; in decimal form, their digits unspool into infinity. And both are ubiquitous in scientific laws. But they seem to come from different realms: π (3.14159 …) governs the perfect symmetry and closure of the circle; it's in planetary orbits, the endless up and down of light waves. e (2.71828 …) is the foundation of exponential growth, that accelerating trajectory of escape inherent to compound interest, nuclear fission, Moore's law. It's used to model everything that grows.

Enter Leonhard Euler, the one-eyed Swiss genius whom Frederick the Great lovingly called "our Cyclops." What Euler showed, in his 1748 book Introduction to Analysis of the Infinite, is that π and e are deeply related, but in a very weird way. They're connected in a dimension perpendicular to the world of real things—a place measured in units of i, the square root of –1, which of course doesn't … exist. Mathematicians call it an imaginary number.

For further info see http://www.wired.com/2014/11/eulers-identity/ .

[cooldgamer]

This is my last response to you since we just seem to be going in circles now x.x

I didn't mean to use different standards. And I don't know that I did. The evidences existing in the universe suggest that God exists way more than they suggest that He doesn't exist. It isn't because I say it. It is simply found in the ways that the universe works.

A simple allegory might be, if you saw smoke way off in the distance, it would suggest that there was fire way off in the distance. But it might be a volcano. Or it might not be smoke, but only a dust cloud that happened to look like smoke. Evidence for fire, but no proof of fire.

However, as the smoke was simply stated above, it would suggest fire way more than a lake. There might be a lake there. But the smoke doesn't suggest it. Until we get there, we won't really know. But if we want to surmise about it, the conclusion would be fire.

In my previous posts about the machine-like quality of the universe, all I am saying is that machines have makers. The machine-like quality of the universe suggests a maker way more than anything else. And the maker of anything as great as our universe would fit the definition of "God." Until we get there, we won't know proof positive.

You keep making the assumption that there being complexity means that there is a higher power.  There is absolutely no backing to this claim, and what you claim as backing just goes into the watchmaker fallacy (the watch had to have had a maker because it is so complex, universe is the watch), but something had to have created the watchmaker.  We haven't seen any smoke yet, because if you claim complexity as smoke then fire is impossible to exist.  Terrible analogy.

Yes. Now if you could only apply that kind of thinking to yourself. I mean, how much bigger can the picture get than the universe?

Perhaps there is no way to validate the Bible. But there are methods that have been used to almost validate it. And the methods used validate the Bible way more than scientific experiments validate evolution. Why? When you consider all the historical and traditional info surrounding the Bible, you come up with a book that can't exist as the Bible exists. Yet the Bible exists all over the world, in many translations, and is believed by millions. No other religious writing carries anywhere near that kind of combined strength.

*facedesk*

Science has validated evolution OVER and OVER and OVER, waaaaay more than any claims you're making about the bible being impossible to exist.  Your methods of validating the bible are not scientific, and really have no way of being proven.  A lot of people being in a cult doesn't make it true.

Scientific experiments that seem to validate evolution, either validate other ideas that are non-evolution ideas as well, or they are completely non-practical for fitting in the way the universe operates, making them lab experiments only.

There are so many strange and marvelous things in the universe, that something like Spiderman might exist, even though the comic books don't prove him.

Again, you're taking a little snippet and saying that because it doesn't show the whole picture there is room for something else.  Look at everything we've found and it all points towards evolution, the lab experiments are just one piece of the puzzle.

Someone might say, "I don't know if God exists, and I don't know if He doesn't exist." This isn't atheism. Atheism is believing God doesn't exist. Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t for the definition.

Since we don't have scientific proof that God DOES exists, and we don't have scientific proof that He DOESN'T exist, believers IN God, and believers IN NO God are simply opposed religions.

If you don't want to be in a religion, stop believing that God doesn't exist. Simply don't believe either way. At least, stop expressing that you believe that God doesn't exist. Atheism is a religion even though the atheists don't realize it.

You are correct about the definition of atheism, which is why I describe myself as a agnostic atheist.  I don't know if there is a god, but I choose to not believe until presented with what I consider to be enough proof.  You can't paint us all with one brush, we have different levels of disbelief.

I really don't care if you call atheism a religion or not, seems like a pretty irrelevant point.  If not believing in something is a set of beliefs then not eating icecream is a flavor.  I'm not going to stop expressing my disbelief, because you poor people trapped in your cults need to see logic and the world for what it is.  I give 0 fucks about your beliefs, but when it impacts my government, my tax dollars, and my life then it goes too far.

[BADecker]

You keep making the assumption that there being complexity means that there is a higher power.  There is absolutely no backing to this claim, and what you claim as backing just goes into the watchmaker fallacy (the watch had to have had a maker because it is so complex, universe is the watch), but something had to have created the watchmaker.  We haven't seen any smoke yet, because if you claim complexity as smoke then fire is impossible to exist.  Terrible analogy.

Completely wrong. I keep comparing the the simple machinery that some of the more intelligent animals use, with,
the extremely complex machinery that man makes, with,
the fantastic, ultra-complex machinery of the universe, and,
extrapolating.

The extrapolation suggests that the more complex the machinery is, the more intelligent the maker must be. And yes, there must be a maker, since the only highly complex machinery we see outside of the ultra-complex machinery of the universe, is the complex machinery that man makes.

We take and make our machinery from the examples of the universe. We are not as complex by a big margin as the universe. Therefore, the universe (or the God) must be supremely intelligent, since even our highly complex bodies and minds come through the universe.

Nowhere in nature do we see stupidity and simplicity developing complex machinery, except the complex strength that some atheistic scientist have that they would deny God in the face of all the complexity evidence.

[BADecker]

Science has validated evolution OVER and OVER and OVER, waaaaay more than any claims you're making about the bible being impossible to exist.  Your methods of validating the bible are not scientific, and really have no way of being proven.  A lot of people being in a cult doesn't make it true.

Wrong! It is the scientific validation of the history of the Bible from scientific standpoints that I am talking about.

All the science that can clearly be used to validate evolution, can also be used to validate simple change based on programming due to changes in climate and environment.

[BADecker]

Again, you're taking a little snippet and saying that because it doesn't show the whole picture there is room for something else.  Look at everything we've found and it all points towards evolution, the lab experiments are just one piece of the puzzle.

Notice the little snippet that you are using as an example. You use the lab experiments as example, while I have shown over and over, the way that the "little snippet" of the complexity of the whole universe suggests God. What method do you have? At least I have a method that includes the whole universe. And you want to call that a snippet?

You are a faster typist than I, right?

[BADecker]

I really don't care if you call atheism a religion or not, seems like a pretty irrelevant point.  If not believing in something is a set of beliefs then not eating icecream is a flavor.  I'm not going to stop expressing my disbelief, because you poor people trapped in your cults need to see logic and the world for what it is.  I give 0 fucks about your beliefs, but when it impacts my government, my tax dollars, and my life then it goes too far.

It is the impacting of the nation that is one of the most important parts.

Pick up any school or college textbook that talks about evolution. If the textbook has any info about evolution as being a simple possibility that has not been proven, such info is relatively scant. Rather, the textbooks attempt to turn the idea of theory regarding evolution into "We know evolution is true; we just don't know how it happened." That's lying. Evolution has NOT been proven true, and the machine-like qualities of the universe as I have explained them, throw the ideas of evolution into a much weaker position than many people have understood before.

In other words, it is the idea of evolution that is negatively impacting government and tax dollars, and, through these, your life.

[protokol]

@ the joint, thanks for your detailed explanation, you make some very valid points. While I agree that the concept of a "theory of theories" would indeed constitute a priori knowledge from which we could properly investigate the nature of reality (and whether a god exists), I'm not sure that such a concept could ever practically exist. You've certainly given me something to think about though!