Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

Anyone lacking knowledge had best keep an open mind and get on with his/her studies.

Good advice. Until anyone has the knowledge of God, he will be studying, even in simply living his life.

You are not supposed to be attacking your brother with words like "foolishness".

Because you feel like ordering me to do something? Is your throne greater than Solomon's?

Where is the proof for your claim that the Bible is the only recorded word of God?

How mistaken can you get? Are going to sign my name to some claim when I never made it? Or don't you really know how to read?

You need to get all of your entities that use the bl4kjaguar handle to read the posts before they start jabbering.

How can you be sure that you have Christ's authentic teachings if your book was not written by Christ?

It is by faith. But, as I have said before, it is not blind faith. The Bible authenticates itself by what is written therein, and by the history of how it came into existence, and by the traditions of the nation of Israel through whom the Bible came. Study it to find out the truth.

How can you be sure that Paul wrote down Christ's authentic teachings if Paul was never a "follower of Christ"?

Biblically, it seems that Paul was younger than Jesus. This means that he followed Jesus chronologically as well as by obeying Jesus' instructions to become one of His followers.

I am fed up with your attacking my beliefs; you have no right to speak anything to me unless it happens to be an apology.

Yes, but there isn't anything that I can do about you attacking your own beliefs by speaking before you have studied. How many times have you apologized to yourself? I'll bet not many, because you keep on sticking your foot into your mouth.

Apologize to me, loser.

Now you are starting to sound like the devil talking when he order Jesus to bow down to him, in the temptations in the wilderness.

[1715249864]

1715249864

[Vod]

Since this thread is going nowhere, thought I would lighten it up with some religious humor!  I encourage everyone to join in.

[TheTribesman]

Since this thread is going nowhere, thought I would lighten it up with some religious humor!  I encourage everyone to join in.

Not no homos. No buggering, period! Homo, hetero, retro.... it don't matter. No buggering!

Love is love, buggering is buggering.

[cyberpinoy]

Common Logical Proof God Does not exist.

If God existed, and created this world would there really be crime, would there be disese, would there be theives, liars and killers?

He supposedly created us, if we in fact were created in his own image would not God be a lieing, theiving, greedy, unethical, scamming, murdering, raping person?

Why not we were created in his own image right? are there not liars on earth, are there not murderers, and all the things I mentioned? they were here from the beginning of time too. cain and able .

How do you know the good people are the acception to the situation, how do you know for a fact God is not a liar? a theif? if he was not how did we gain the ability to do these things we were created in his image right?

If God existed why do his followers suffer so much pain while the sinners advance in life from their unethical acts of sin.

God does not exist, if you know anything about religion you would understand this, GOD was not always worshiped thru-out time, before God was ever heard of there were many gods that represented many things, sun gods earth gods star gods moon gods. God was created and God has a brother Allah, The muslim writings are very VERY similar to the christian writings.

As far as the Bible and faith arte concerned please tell me about a possible village of people who never sw a bible never heard of god or jesus. if Jesus is our mediary and the only way to heaven. what happens to this village of people are they condemned to hell because they never even knew God existed?

God is a fabrication of bullshit, churches are one of the most proifitable businesses outside the energy industry. If God existed we would not be having this conversation would we? We would all know he esisted. We dont need faith we need proof, you cant supply hard proof he does not exist PERIOD!!!!

And No I will not go to hell for I have lived my life on hell when i die I will die, I will turn to dust and become part of the evolution cycle. I will not go to heaven I will not go to hell. If there is a hell we are living on it now

[ObscureBean]

@the joint Well I suppose this was to be expected. Although I never placed any such limit prior to the start of our conversation.
You've systematically missed/avoided/failed to understand every single one of the points I made.

Unfortunately, we're now back to these 2 comments I made earlier in the thread:

Proof exists for anyone who wishes to have it.
Proof is the succulent, seasonless, ever-present fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge. From newborns to centenarians, all are equally well-equipped to pluck it with ease  

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.

I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science. And no, whatever word you come up with, to categorize someone making such a statement, does not encompass me.

The idea of God as a supreme being promotes the concept of "survival of the fittest". Science is the subtle art of restriction, nothing more. Science and religion are exactly the same.
A theory's only purpose is to exert control, whether it be over one's surroundings or other living beings. Any theory is by default impossible. Everything in the theorist's reality is of the same nature as the theorist: infinite. A theory seeks to maintain the theorist as an infinity while reducing everything around the theorist to lesser, apprehensible artifacts.
A proven theory appears to endow its wielder with power, however that is only an illusion as the theory does not truly apprehend the reality of the infinities around the theorist.
Regardless of how much of himself the theorist gives up for his theory, he is always aware of the inadequacy of his theory. With real power out of his reach, the theorist achieves his greatest trick when he is able to convince those around him that his theory is valid. As the newly formed bubble continues to gather faithfuls, the theorist's power over his followers becomes very real. This non-existent power is the ego. Science is borne by such.

I think you'll agree with me that there is no point in me answering the remaining questions. I have absolutely no desire to prove myself.

As it happens, the answers to all the questions anyone could ever ask me are to be found in my comments in this thread  

My original impression that you are a humble guy still stands and I wish you good fortune in all your future endeavors. (And don't worry, this does not mean that we can't chat anymore   )
 

[Vod]

I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science.

Then why are you using the internet, a tool made possible by science?   

[ObscureBean]

I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science.

Then why are you using the internet, a tool made possible by science?   

The two are not mutually exclusive 

[Furio]

I believe in Energy and vibrations, connecting us all. Science and Religion are both a little short sited in my view, Science doesn't acknowledge what it can't see, Religion only talks about this planet....

[the joint]

@the joint Well I suppose this was to be expected. Although I never placed any such limit prior to the start of our conversation.
You've systematically missed/avoided/failed to understand every single one of the points I made.

Unfortunately, we're now back to these 2 comments I made earlier in the thread:

Proof exists for anyone who wishes to have it.
Proof is the succulent, seasonless, ever-present fruit hanging from the tree of knowledge. From newborns to centenarians, all are equally well-equipped to pluck it with ease  

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.

I do not believe in God and I do not believe in Science. And no, whatever word you come up with, to categorize someone making such a statement, does not encompass me.

The idea of God as a supreme being promotes the concept of "survival of the fittest". Science is the subtle art of restriction, nothing more. Science and religion are exactly the same.
A theory's only purpose is to exert control, whether it be over one's surroundings or other living beings. Any theory is by default impossible. Everything in the theorist's reality is of the same nature as the theorist: infinite. A theory seeks to maintain the theorist as an infinity while reducing everything around the theorist to lesser, apprehensible artifacts.
A proven theory appears to endow its wielder with power, however that is only an illusion as the theory does not truly apprehend the reality of the infinities around the theorist.
Regardless of how much of himself the theorist gives up for his theory, he is always aware of the inadequacy of his theory. With real power out of his reach, the theorist achieves his greatest trick when he is able to convince those around him that his theory is valid. As the newly formed bubble continues to gather faithfuls, the theorist's power over his followers becomes very real. This non-existent power is the ego. Science is borne by such.

I think you'll agree with me that there is no point in me answering the remaining questions. I have absolutely no desire to prove myself.

As it happens, the answers to all the questions anyone could ever ask me are to be found in my comments in this thread  

My original impression that you are a humble guy still stands and I wish you good fortune in all your future endeavors. (And don't worry, this does not mean that we can't chat anymore   )
 

Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?"  I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.

With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.  Furthermore, it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  

[ObscureBean]

Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?"  I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.

Probably because my 'belief' (as you say) is inextricably part of me. Proving myself and proving my 'belief' amounts to the same thing. You view your theory as a separate entity from yourself, I don't.
I don't change. I don't better myself. Instead I accept full responsibility for myself/the way I am/my 'belief'/my 'theory'.  

With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.  

There are a few things I would like to say on this comment.

1) I've never said "we can't really know anything absolutely" In fact, I even said that it is possible. You've inferred this from my comments, even though I've specifically addressed this point. That conclusion came naturally for you because it is a defensive reflex.

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.

From this comment, it is clear that it is possible for one to "know anything/everything absolutely" as long as one is 100% happy with one's knowledge.


2) Humans' quest for 'absolute knowledge' is in direct contradiction with their way of life. One of the most sacred human motto is "To err is human." These simple words grant humanity the ability to forgive itself and forget its actions no matter how many mistakes, it makes. One of the implications of 'absolute knowledge' is that mistakes would become fatal.


3)Lastly, you don't seem to be aware of the duality of your own comment. You are effectively countering your own proposition.

---> You infer that I made an absolute statement.
---> You rebel against the absolute statement for being absolute.
---> The quest you're defending is an effort to reach exactly that: an absolute statement.  

it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  

How am I not correct in saying you addressed my points systematically when you yourself just confirmed that you addressed them "point-by-point"?
The only thing that could give this last part of your comment any meaning at all, is if you missed the fact that I actually used "missed/avoided/failed to understand" rather than just "avoided"


Ok gonna take a break now. Enjoy your Sunday!  

[tattooist]

Since this thread is going nowhere, thought I would lighten it up with some religious humor!  I encourage everyone to join in.

I'm joining in with you vod.. time to bring some color in this thread

[tattooist]

[Lauda]

-snip-

1) Anyone could have written that nonsense.
2) That's just superstition.

[tattooist]

-snip-

1) Anyone could have written that nonsense.
2) That's just superstition.

Is this better?

[bl4kjaguar]

You are not supposed to be attacking your brother with words like "foolishness".

Because you feel like ordering me to do something? Is your throne greater than Solomon's?

Christ said judge not lest we be judged.

Yours is not Christian behavior but the mere denouncing of a brother efforting to find his God Truth.

Matthew 7:2 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye yet fail to perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

You can behave better than that, BADecker; Christ said anything He could do, you can do better (John 14:12)!

[Lethn]

Excellent the religious morons are turning on each other because of their own contradictory beliefs!

[bl4kjaguar]

Excellent the religious morons are turning on each other because of their own contradictory beliefs!

Are you going to judge who is a moron without first finding out what they believe?

That is the same prejudice espoused by the "fundamentalists" and radicals.

Your prejudice is different???

[Lethn]

Yes, it's based on the historical evidence and mathematical data provided to me.

[Gimpeline]

Excellent the religious morons are turning on each other because of their own contradictory beliefs!

Are you going to judge who is a moron without first finding out what they believe?

That is the same prejudice espoused by the "fundamentalists" and radicals.

Your prejudice is different???

If there is no evidence that it's true, I see no reason to hear them out

[the joint]

Why do you feel compelled to "prove yourself?"  I thought you'd feel compelled to prove your belief.

Probably because my 'belief' (as you say) is inextricably part of me. Proving myself and proving my 'belief' amounts to the same thing. You view your theory as a separate entity from yourself, I don't.
I don't change. I don't better myself. Instead I accept full responsibility for myself/the way I am/my 'belief'/my 'theory'.  

With all due respect, when one takes a position that essentially equates to "we can't really know anything absolutely" for whatever reason, it 'a priori' renders the position invalid.  

There are a few things I would like to say on this comment.

1) I've never said "we can't really know anything absolutely" In fact, I even said that it is possible. You've inferred this from my comments, even though I've specifically addressed this point. That conclusion came naturally for you because it is a defensive reflex.

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.

From this comment, it is clear that it is possible for one to "know anything/everything absolutely" as long as one is 100% happy with one's knowledge.


2) Humans' quest for 'absolute knowledge' is in direct contradiction with their way of life. One of the most sacred human motto is "To err is human." These simple words grant humanity the ability to forgive itself and forget its actions no matter how many mistakes, it makes. One of the implications of 'absolute knowledge' is that mistakes would become fatal.


3)Lastly, you don't seem to be aware of the duality of your own comment. You are effectively countering your own proposition.

---> You infer that I made an absolute statement.
---> You rebel against the absolute statement for being absolute.
---> The quest you're defending is an effort to reach exactly that: an absolute statement.  

it's fairly frustrating to be accused of "systematically" avoiding your points just after addressing your previous response point-by-point  

How am I not correct in saying you addressed my points systematically when you yourself just confirmed that you addressed them "point-by-point"?
The only thing that could give this last part of your comment any meaning at all, is if you missed the fact that I actually used "missed/avoided/failed to understand" rather than just "avoided"


Ok gonna take a break now. Enjoy your Sunday!  

1)  Your belief that proving yourself and proving your belief amount to the same thing seems to contradict your belief that a theory of reality does not amount to explaining reality.  We can actually look to logic for understanding about the nature of relationships between similarities and differences, and in doing so we find that any and all differences *must* arise from similarities, i.e. "real" differences imply reductive similarities (e.g. sharing realness, etc.).  To this extent, at the most fundamental level of reasoning, objectivity and subjectivity, or absolutism and relativism, are the same.  This gives further credibility to the idea of a self-referential theory of reality.

2) All statements that we generate necessitate a presumption of absolutism, and it's impossible to avoid if you want to consider any thought or statement meaningful.  For example, consider the statement "truth is relative" and how it necessarily rides on the back of an unspoken assumption, namely that "it is the absolute truth that truth is relative."  To continue reinforcing the relativity of truth is to reinforce absolutism of the statement.  "Ratio" is the root word of rationale, thereby implying that all rational statements are relational ones, including statements about absolutism.

Denying any statement as absolute in *any* context (and not simply at the highest level of generality) 'a priori' renders the statement irrelevant.  I inferred that you were stating that it impossible to know anything absolutely based upon your statement that "a theory is by definition impossible" coupled with your assertion that a theorist is "unable to apprehend the infinities" that surround him (which isn't much of a concern, anyway).

3) I don't rebel against any statements for being considered absolute.  Absolutism and relativism are considered with regards to context, and I am most interested in the idea of forming an absolute (in terms of its scope of comprehension) theory of reality that is self-relational and describes its self in terms of itself.'

4) I used "avoided" as a catch-all for the other terms you mentioned.  Nevertheless, I responded to each of your points individually, but if you feel there are any I missed or misrepresented, please let me know.