Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

I have stated my points of view. You have stated yours.

Actually, what I was looking for in this thread was proof.

Proof is an argument backed up by points; you made eight points which I refuted; as a result, I showed you that God's WORD is at least as legitimate as what you promote.

You called my truth a heresy; however, God denies that the recorded truth (in the published WORD) is a heresy:

"I do not fit the role as to Christian heretic for I do, in fact, travel about with the Christ in total Godness and therefore I certainly do not deviate in any iota from the whole Truth of the doctrine of God"

This is the same God that you called "the devil". I think that you are wrong and have insulted your brother; you took this discussion way too far. I do not feel so bad myself though. Actually, in the WORD it says that I should not pay attention to critics and attackers, and should not get involved in doctrinal quarrels, so I honestly have no good reason for having this talk with you.

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

[1714181146]

1714181146

[1714181146]

1714181146

[1714181146]

1714181146

[1714181146]

1714181146

[bl4kjaguar]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called me a fool. You said my God was the devil.

Now you want me to have a nice day.

Are you sure?

[BADecker]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called God the devil.

You called the WORD a heresy.

You called me a fool.

You have voted-in and out the true laws of Christ.

Okay. Thanks for saying. I'll take it under advisory, even though I don't agree. Have a nice day.

[bl4kjaguar]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called me a fool. You said my God was the devil.

Now you want me to have a nice day.

Are you sure?

You're not making much sense, BADecker.

[BADecker]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called me a fool. You said my God was the devil.

Now you want me to have a nice day.

Are you sure?

You're not making much sense, BADecker.

Are you sure you are not another of Decksperiment's multiple personalities?

[bl4kjaguar]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called me a fool. You said my God was the devil.

Now you want me to have a nice day.

Are you sure?

You're not making much sense, BADecker.

Are you sure you are not another of Decksperiment's multiple personalities?

This is my only account.

Careful what you say about God; he is not known to meet human expectations.

[BADecker]

Okay. Thanks for saying. I don't agree with you. Have a nice day.

You called me a fool. You said my God was the devil.

Now you want me to have a nice day.

Are you sure?

You're not making much sense, BADecker.

Are you sure you are not another of Decksperiment's multiple personalities?

This is my only account.

Careful what you say about God; he is not known to meet human expectations.

Okay. Thanks for saying. Have a nice day.

[Rassah]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that god is not real...

There. I just made a counter argument just as valid as all of yours.

In simple form, your argument is valid.

In complex form, questioning where the complex things of the universe came from, the clearest answer is God, even though we don't have absolute proof for Him, and may never have it.

No, that's the simplest answer. But it is no more valid or true than answering that the universe came from a unicorn's butt. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to test and verify your claim, since as you said, there isnt even any conclusive proof that he even exists, and thus your "god did it" is nothing but your own personal opinion. And as everyone keeps telling you, until you actually provide proof, one that we can test and verify ourselves, all you're arguing about is your own unsubstantiated opinion.

[the joint]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that god is not real...

There. I just made a counter argument just as valid as all of yours.

In simple form, your argument is valid.

In complex form, questioning where the complex things of the universe came from, the clearest answer is God, even though we don't have absolute proof for Him, and may never have it.

No, that's the simplest answer. But it is no more valid or true than answering that the universe came from a unicorn's butt. The reason is that there is absolutely no way to test and verify your claim, since as you said, there isnt even any conclusive proof that he even exists, and thus your "god did it" is nothing but your own personal opinion. And as everyone keeps telling you, until you actually provide proof, one that we can test and verify ourselves, all you're arguing about is your own unsubstantiated opinion.

You are correct there is no way to 'test' for God...in an empirical sense; there is no possible way that any amount of evidence could constitute proof of God.  But you are incorrect that there is no way to verify the claim.

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

[(oYo)]

My position is that God:Reality :: Man:Perceptions.  I believe it is accurate to say "man was created in God's image," and I think that we are all essentially gods...mini-gods.   I would venture so far as to say that, at the greatest possible scale, the interplay of consciousness and reality is God attempting to know himself and move towards self-actualization.

If you like reading, I would recommend to you a book called "Conversations with God, Book 1: An Uncommon Dialogue". I think perhaps you might enjoy it, since it is basically an affirmation of your beliefs. It was given to me by someone a few years after its release and I've since passed it on to someone else, but at that time in my life it resonated with me quite strongly. Cheers

[shenron276]

Check out the movie Zeitgeist. It tells all about how Christianity is a actually astrology - related cr**. People, don't be ridiculous, you have one life, live it freely, don't be mislead by religion, cause it's all just a joke. There, I rest my case.

[(oYo)]

Check out the movie Zeitgeist. It tells all about how Christianity is a actually astrology - related cr**. People, don't be ridiculous, you have one life, live it freely, don't be mislead by religion, cause it's all just a joke. There, I rest my case.

That movie changed my life. Highly recommended.

[BADecker]

Check out the movie Zeitgeist. It tells all about how Christianity is a actually astrology - related cr**. People, don't be ridiculous, you have one life, live it freely, don't be mislead by religion, cause it's all just a joke. There, I rest my case.

Now we have 2 Gods? Astrology is crap. Any god it produces is crap.

The universe, nature around us, and life show us that there is something fantastically great behind everything that exists. If there weren't, researchers would have developed life extension so that we could all live to 1000 years old, long ago.

As it is, research is still just finding out some of the basics of life. And we certainly don't have the ability to travel the universe. We can barely get off our own planet. Since we don't have much of a handle on anything - like we don't even know how to will ourselves to grow back a finger when we lose one - where does all this complex universe come from?

We use religion basics in our everyday lives. We "religiously" do certain activities all the time - eating, sleeping, going to the job, breathing. Religion that worships the God that is behind everything that exists, is certainly something noble.

Think long and hard before you decide to bypass religion. Some of that religion is about God, the Guy Who holds your life and existence in the palm of His hand. To see it, simply look at nature around you, and see how your existence fits into everything that exists.

[Rassah]

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

First of all, all you'll have as a result is a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's no more valid than an opinion, albeit based on logical set of words. And second, that theory does not automatically prove god exists, particularly because you would have to define what god is in the first place. So far no one has been able to.

[Rassah]

The universe, nature around us, and life show us that there is something fantastically great behind everything that exists. If there weren't, researchers would have developed life extension so that we could all live to 1000 years old, long ago.

Why do you say that? Is your claim that, because it took our monkey brains hundreds of years to develop understanding and tools to understand biology, that biology is too complex to be created by anything but a god? Why does a system have to be simple for it to be natural? And, let's say our society collapses, and we lose a lot of our knowledge. Does the fact that it would take centuries to rediscover how to make something as complex as a computer CPU mean that CPUs are made by god? Or better yet, what will you be claiming when, in 50 years or so, we DO figure out how to live to 1000? (We're actually very close, since we understand almost all mechanisms of aging at this point, and are now just working on ways to repair and modify them)

As it is, research is still just finding out some of the basics of life. And we certainly don't have the ability to travel the universe. We can barely get off our own planet. Since we don't have much of a handle on anything - like we don't even know how to will ourselves to grow back a finger when we lose one - where does all this complex universe come from?

Why do you say it's complex? That's just your personal opinion, based on your lack of knowledge. Life and the universe are fairly straightforward to biologists, physicists, and engineers. You are arguing from ignorance here, basically claiming "I don't understand, so no one else does either."

We use religion basics in our everyday lives. We "religiously" do certain activities all the time - eating, sleeping, going to the job, breathing.

That's not religion, that's biomechanical processes and instincts We do them because our body sends signals making us crave those things, and rewards us with physical evidence when we complete the tasks. You don't eat food because you have faith that you are hungry, and have faith that you will feel full after. Conversely, a person born in a society that doesn't believe in god or Jesus (such as in Islamic, Buddhist, Shinto, or atheist society) doesn't get cravings for Jesus.

Think long and hard before you decide to bypass religion.

Every atheist in America has. You may assume that atheists started out that way, and just haven't considered the idea of god before, but in fact America is absolutely steeped in religion. 80% of it is Christian (which is why we laugh when they claim religious persecution, or claim they are courageous to say they love Jesus in public), and religion is mentioned everywhere almost daily. So atheists almost always start out christian here,believing what you believe, and then get educated, start questioning and thinking, and come to their senses, realizing that Christian stuff doesn't make sense.

Some of that religion is about God, the Guy Who holds your life and existence in the palm of His hand. To see it, simply look at nature around you, and see how your existence fits into everything that exists.

Fitting into things that exist is evolution, not god. You, as a species, would not exist in your environment if you didn't fit into it, because you would either starve due to lack of food you need, or get eaten due to being weak and stupid. So of course every living thing fits into everything that exists. Those who didn't went extinct long ago.

[BADecker]

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

First of all, all you'll have as a result is a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's no more valid than an opinion, albeit based on logical set of words. And second, that theory does not automatically prove god exists, particularly because you would have to define what god is in the first place. So far no one has been able to.

Place everything on an even basis. The question is, "Proof for God?" No absolute proof for God exists, or for anything else that would have the strength of God if He did existed. Forget the proof idea. also, forget the idea of all kinds of processes that such a God - if He exists - might have brought everything into existence.

Rather than trying to prove something that is not provable, look at the various ideas. Various ideas for where the universe came from are?:
1. God;
2. Evolution;
3. Nothing exists; it is all a figment of the imagination (not really a point because the imagination has to come from somewhere);
4. ?;
5. ?;
6. ?...

We simply don't know where the universe comes from in all its complexity, simplicity, decline (entropy), and seeming ascent at times. So far, because of our INability to understand all but a little, the best bet is "God," best by a long shot. It is even better than saying, Because we don't absolutely know for a fact, I'm simply going to ignore the whole topic. Why? No proof, but exceedingly strong evidence.

[Rassah]

Rather than trying to prove something that is not provable, look at the various ideas. Various ideas for where the universe came from are?:
1. God;
2. Evolution;

Said another way:
1. Fairy tale with no actual proof
2. Observable reality

We simply don't know where the universe comes from in all its complexity, simplicity, decline (entropy), and seeming ascent at times.

Again, you are arguing from ignorance. YOU don't know where the universe comes from. I and many others (especially astrophysicists) have a pretty good idea. What would you say if I were to claim "We simply don't know where computer software comes from in all its complexity, simplicity, etc., thus the obvious answer is that god wrote it all."

So far, because of our INability to understand all but a little, the best bet is "God," best by a long shot.

That's not a best bet, that's a good of holes. As we learn more and more, your best bet becomes smaller and smaller, and is continuously disproven. That's actually the WORST bet for your god, because such a bet means that god is proven wrong all the time. God moves the heavens? Proven wrong. God makes things fly? Proven wrong. God determines how species change? Proven wrong. God heals illnesses? Proven wrong. And this proving wrong of god and his actions will only continue. So your best bet is to actually get god out of the way of scientific progress before he is completely run over and crushed.

It is even better than saying, Because we don't absolutely know for a fact, I'm simply going to ignore the whole topic.

But that is EXACTLY what you are saying when you claim that god is responsible! You take a complex topic, fail to explain it, and choose to simply ignore it, claiming that it must be god's doing. Scientists don't do that. They say "Because we don't absolutely know for a fact, we'll simply take our best guess, and keep studying until we know better."
Or did I misunderstand you, and are you actually claiming that its better to simply ignore topics we don't understand?

[BADecker]

The universe, nature around us, and life show us that there is something fantastically great behind everything that exists. If there weren't, researchers would have developed life extension so that we could all live to 1000 years old, long ago.

Why do you say that? Is your claim that, because it took our monkey brains hundreds of years to develop understanding and tools to understand biology, that biology is too complex to be created by anything but a god?

Because the whole of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics show us that the kind of development that goes from nothing to life, is destroyed by nature way faster than it can be propagated, even if it could be shown to be possible to exist and propagate that way, which it hasn't.

Why does a system have to be simple for it to be natural?

It doesn't. And that's the whole point. Even the best of researchers can't change the technology that is in the universe enough to produce a method for folks to live healthy lives to even 200 years old.

Where does our technology come from? Observing and using what is in nature... nowhere else. The universe is packed full of technology. It is simply put together differently - better - than ours, and for a different purpose.

And, let's say our society collapses, and we lose a lot of our knowledge. Does the fact that it would take centuries to rediscover how to make something as complex as a computer CPU mean that CPUs are made by god?

What do you think a brain is?

Or better yet, what will you be claiming when, in 50 years or so, we DO figure out how to live to 1000? (We're actually very close, since we understand almost all mechanisms of aging at this point, and are now just working on ways to repair and modify them)

I'll be saying, prove it. And if anyone reaches 200 using the methods research provides, I'd say that they had a good start. I might partake just to see if they are right.

As it is, research is still just finding out some of the basics of life. And we certainly don't have the ability to travel the universe. We can barely get off our own planet. Since we don't have much of a handle on anything - like we don't even know how to will ourselves to grow back a finger when we lose one - where does all this complex universe come from?

Why do you say it's complex? That's just your personal opinion, based on your lack of knowledge. Life and the universe are fairly straightforward to biologists, physicists, and engineers. You are arguing from ignorance here, basically claiming "I don't understand, so no one else does either."

If you really believe this, then you are missing a whole lot of scientific research. Creating simple life in the lab is something that is complicated enough that the things that we create can't be ascertained to really be life. Somebody doesn't do this in his garage in his spare time. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment that go into the experiments, and still, there is no certainty that the thing that was created is life. Yet, nature does it all the time, automatically.

We use religion basics in our everyday lives. We "religiously" do certain activities all the time - eating, sleeping, going to the job, breathing.

That's not religion, that's biomechanical processes and instincts We do them because our body sends signals making us crave those things, and rewards us with physical evidence when we complete the tasks. You don't eat food because you have faith that you are hungry, and have faith that you will feel full after. Conversely, a person born in a society that doesn't believe in god or Jesus (such as in Islamic, Buddhist, Shinto, or atheist society) doesn't get cravings for Jesus.

The idea wasn't that our whole life is a religion. The idea is that we do many things in our lives in a religious way, like a religion.

People forget the morality that is built into them naturally. Without it, we would be savages. Even the animals have certain morality built into them by nature.

Formal religions are there for two reasons: 1) to remind us of the morality we forget; 2) to prepare us to enter into eternal life. The fact that there are bad people who use formal religious societies to do their wicked deeds simply shows us that not every person is morally minded... or headed for eternal life. However, if there were no formal religions to push morality, there would be way more chaos among the lives of people.

You can see that success in the lives of people, equates to the quality of the laws they religiously follow. All you need do is compare the religions of the various nations, and how well the people follow them.

Think long and hard before you decide to bypass religion.

Every atheist in America has. You may assume that atheists started out that way, and just haven't considered the idea of god before, but in fact America is absolutely steeped in religion. 80% of it is Christian (which is why we laugh when they claim religious persecution, or claim they are courageous to say they love Jesus in public), and religion is mentioned everywhere almost daily. So atheists almost always start out christian here,believing what you believe, and then get educated, start questioning and thinking, and come to their senses, realizing that Christian stuff doesn't make sense.

Someone has deluded a whole bunch of folks into thinking that atheism is NOT a religion. Can we prove the existence of God? Can we prove that God does NOT exist? No, both ways. Atheism says that God does not exist, without proof, and even against the odds. Atheism is a religion. It is a religion of hate for God.

Some of that religion is about God, the Guy Who holds your life and existence in the palm of His hand. To see it, simply look at nature around you, and see how your existence fits into everything that exists.

Fitting into things that exist is evolution, not god. You, as a species, would not exist in your environment if you didn't fit into it, because you would either starve due to lack of food you need, or get eaten due to being weak and stupid. So of course every living thing fits into everything that exists. Those who didn't went extinct long ago.

Except for one major thing. Evolution is an idea. It is even touted as only a theory among those who are attempting to prove it. This is because the researchers are just scratching the surface in their proof for evolution. They aren't even far enough along with their evidences to say that their evidence for a factual evolution, do NOT prove God in some other way at the same time. Evolution is nothing. It is fabrication.

Complex universe and life, combined with the wide-spread entropy that exists, combined with the cause and effect nature of everything that exists, suggests God so extremely much that He might as well have been proven. There is so little in the universe that suggests that God DOESN'T exist, that He is essentially proven, even though He technically has not been.

----------

These are words. Anybody can say that they mean nothing. And, of themselves, they mean extremely little. Yet, when the themes that these word express are examined in detail, the themes prove to be truth.

[the joint]

We first have to start with the claim as a hypothetical.  This is permitted because we needn't argue for the claim itself, at least in a direct sense.

The claim, unsupported by any evidence, serves as a point of reference.  Having made the claim, we then need to create a theory that explains the entirety of reality at the height of generality, i.e. a theory whose explanatory power cannot logically be surpassed.  By definition, such a theory would provide insight into the most fundamental characteristics of reality. 

After first demonstrating that such a theory is sound, we look at those fundamental characteristics and hold them up to our initial claim.  If the results of the theory imply the claim, then we can conclude God exists, and at a 100% level of certainty (practically, it's irrelevant if people modify their original claim; identifying and knowing the absolute limit of rational explanation is the important part).

First of all, all you'll have as a result is a hypothesis, not a theory. And that's no more valid than an opinion, albeit based on logical set of words. And second, that theory does not automatically prove god exists, particularly because you would have to define what god is in the first place. So far no one has been able to.

1) How do you figure that "all that results is a hypothesis?"  You don't actually mean this, do you?  To reference a common example, would you consider the derivation of the quadratic formula or any other purely abstract proof a mere "hypothesis"?

2) Scientific hypotheses and theories are not the only kind that matter.  Theories needn't be scientific or empirical to be strong or true,  and needn't be scientific or empirical at all.  Theories are just descriptions of something, and that description can be good, bad, specific, general, etc.  There is absolutely nothing sound about concluding that evidence is required for sound theory making, or that empiricism must lead to the strongest kinds of theories.  In many cases, the opposite is true because empirical theories can never be asserted at a 100% level of confidence, while other types of theories can.

3) Consider that, for example, something like the derivation of the quadratic formula is a purely abstract proof that requires exactly zero physical evidence but yields direct application to physical reality.  Conversely, also consider that empirical methods of analysis maintain certain unfounded assumptions such as the idea that we live in a Positivistic Universe, an idea for which there is no evidence and which can actually be demonstrably proven to be false.

4) You misunderstood my post as evidenced when you say "...you would have to define what god is in the first place."  I already conceded that you can't just ascribe some arbitrary definition for God and start from there.  What I meant is that, practically, if we create a sound theory of reality whose explanatory power is at the height of generality, that theory will either directly reflect whatever preconceived notions we may have had about God, or it won't (or we won't be sure).  For example, if the theory directly implicates consciousness or mind is a common substrate of reality, then, practically speaking, we could say the theory directly implies God.  I say this is 'practical' because the 'practical' difference between a theistic and an atheistic view of the Universe is whether its origins are physical or mental.  Would you have any issue agreeing that God exists if it was proven that reality is a mental construct?

So, again, the idea is not to start with some preconceived notion of God and then attempt to prove that it exists.  Instead, just think of it as an optional consideration...for fun.

[Buffer Overflow]

Atheism is a religion. It is a religion of hate for God.

Atheists don't hate god. They simply just don't believe he exists.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, by your logic I also hate him.