Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 103. (Read 845582 times)

Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.

Science is fundamentally circular as well. God vs no god is thus no more than entertainment that some people choose to take way too seriously. The whole idea of a God is definitely made up and expressed by humans.

However, at the same time there definitely exists an omnipresent and omniscient something, namely the entirety of existence. Calling that entirety God is perfectly legitimate and something that most rampant atheists are too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
Whether or not that entirety is conscious is a different question (and an odd one at that, as there wouldn't be any change to be conscious of for something that is everything - temporal, spatial, etc. - at once), but we can't even answer what human consciousness means in any satisfactory way. Alas, any and every God debate is no more than a mental exercise or just yet another way to pass time as a human being at best, and a way to manipulate others at worst.

''Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God'' Which god, certainly not your god (Bible god) If we can't know who did it exactly then there is no point, you are just defining god as the creator of the universe, ok, so? What other attributes does he posses, is he like us, from another universe, we can't know anything about him/her/it, you can just say it's god but there is nothing else after that, you don't have any type of evidence to indicate what he really is, you just keep calling him god.

God: creator of the universe
Your argument: Well the creator of the universe is god
Me: Who is god
You: god is the creator of the universe

Circular reasoning.

No circular reasoning. Don't use the word "God" for a moment. Imagine that big bang made the universe. Wouldn't big bang have to be extremely capable to make something like the universe? We are so week in our theory making, that there is only a tiny amount of stuff in BB theory that fits what it would take to make the universe and all the complexity therein. There isn't any of the strength, knowledge, capability in BB to make a universe like ours.

Whatever made the universe fits the definition of God regarding the power, intelligence, personal identity, emotion, and a whole lot of other factors that BB would need to accomplish this gigantic feat.

Cause and effect combined with complexity shows us that there is no other way to approach this subject. If there is, show it to us. Or are you saying we just don't know and probably never will? Any other way would have to include pure random.

So the reason that being would be god is because god is supremely capable, you see the circular reasoning there right? You can't say the reason the creator of the universe has to be god because god bla bla. You have to prove god, you can prove god with god, that's nonsense

People don't make their children. They get them started by having fun, and nature takes over and makes the kids. Your deception only helps to strengthen the fact that there is proof that god exists.

The reason the being would be God is that He is supremely capable, not only in the ways that we are, but in multitudes of ways we are not enabled. Why is He that way? He is that way because He programmed everything by cause and effect. Such programming is not even fathomable by people. I have shown and told this to you on many occasions, but you just slide by it and ignore it.

So, thanks for strengthening the fact that God exists... in the minds of others.

Only God can give us scientific proof that he exists. We humans are far behind in science to prove that something like god exists.
So god I urge you, I beg you please give us the proof that you exist. If you can give us some scientific proof I will believe in you, until than please pardon me.

I think that there is no need to build huge illusions about the fact that someone has to offer you real physical evidence of the existence of God. In general, any attempts at this topic can be considered blasphemy. I would not escalate the situation in this direction. Humanity has already become a huge spread of atheism.

''We are greater intelligence making lesser intelligence.'' That depends, if you have a son and he is more intelligent than you, does that mean you are able to make greater intelligence with lesser intelligence? Even If I agree with all your points and everything suggests that there has to be a greater intelligence that created the universe, your argument never mentions or shows why that being  would be god and not something else. There is nothing to suggest your god did it and not some other entity.

The intelligence of mankind has been around for thousands of years. Without God, nobody knows where it came from. We have evolution guesses, but that in nature which would destroy evolution is so much greater than evolution, that we can't be sure that intelligence grows. In addition, entropy says (or at least suggests) that intelligence is decreasing.

Regarding intelligence, where does that leave us. We still don't know one way or the other except for one thing. We are proving that God exists right in what we are doing when we make AI. We are greater intelligence making lesser intelligence. So, now we have proof that it works one way at least. We still don't have proof that greater intelligence can develop from lesser or no intelligence.



This same, basic idea holds with radioactive decay. We don't factually know that radioactive decay was different in the past than it is now. We simply don't know enough. The closest we can come is to look at nature. Volcanoes and Hurricanes leave destruction in their path. Then, after the destruction has passed, nature attempts to "heal" the planet through plants and animals (and even people) taking over and making the destroyed lands habitable again.

A point is, first there is no volcano. Then there is a volcano that flourishes, and the land dies. Then the volcano dies and the land flourishes again. Now, apply that kind of thinking to radioactive decay and everything else. The only difference regarding radioactive decay is the time involved for change.

However, since we haven't seen or understood this kind of change in radioactive decay, we don't know it for sure. The question is, would we recognize/see radioactive decay change if we, somehow, knew for a fact that it happened? Is our instrumentation strong enough to detect it?

So, why base the timeline of the earth on something that we don't know? The books say that the timeline IS this or that. They should be saying that it APPEARS TO BE this or that, but WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.

The fact that we exist, everybody exist. So God does exist because without him, we are not here.

''Life and intelligence is greater complexity. There is no factual evidence anywhere that such higher complexity can come about by accident'' There is no indication that it doesn't either lol. What's your evidence that life comes from something other than an ''accident''

''So, why would there be any difference in the rest of nature, since we are part of nature?'' Why would radioactive decay be different in the past than now?

Life and intelligence is greater complexity. There is no factual evidence anywhere that such higher complexity can come about by accident. Cause and effect is even a law that suggests that all things are programmed... if you simply look at it. Then, if you study C&E, you see that all things are programed.

You can guess that high complexity can come about from lower complexity. But it hasn't really been found that way. Rather, it is just the opposite. All our machines are less complex than we are. So, why would there be any difference in the rest of nature, since we are part of nature?

Something way more complex put this whole universe together. That is what nature and the universe shows us. Call it what you will. But it is essentially God.

No it doesn't. You are the one saying that life and intelligence could not have originated by something other than a god but there is no evidence for that, life could have originated without a higher being intervening, you still miss evidence.

Big Bang is a nice little theory all by itself. But it doesn't fit reality because it leaves out all kinds of things like life and intelligence and emotion, etc.  So, it will always remain a theory until it is dropped, after people get sick of it bouncing uselessly around in their text books.

The science laws of entropy, cause and effect, and complexity will remain, and continue to prove the existence of God, long after the theories about why these laws exist fade away just like BB theory will.

''most people understood that God exists.'' You mean most people believed in god for no reason. That has nothing to do with scientists, there is no scientific theory about god because god is not real. There is nothing to test the existence of god, that's why no one has proved god scientifically, well you think you have but in real life no one has.

''So, you might say that theories like Big Bang are theories against the existence of God.'' No I might not, big bang theory exists because it does, there is evidence for it and it wasn't fabricated with the intent to disprove god.

As I said, there is no science on god, god is simply blind faith.

The reason there might not be a "God" theory is, at the time scientific theories started to come into being, most people understood that God exists. Science theories were developed by radical scientists who wanted to prove anything other than the existence of God, including that God does NOT exist. So, you might say that theories like Big Bang are theories against the existence of God.

By attempting to stretch theories about entropy and cause and effect into laws that destroy the ways that entropy and cause and effect exist, science is simply making more theories. Entropy and C&E laws exist as laws differently than the theories about them. You are constantly trying to apply theoretical stuff in ways different than the laws state. You will always fail at this, even though you say that you aren't failing. Of course, when you can prove that they exist differently than the laws currently state, then the laws will be changed.

the bitcoin whitepaper

Yet there is no such thing as a ''god theory'' or anything even close to that in the whole scientific community. You are the only one claiming you can prove god and you have failed every time, first by not understanding the principles you preach (entropy or cause and effect) and secondly for assuming a lot of stuff all the time just like you are against methods of dating because we can't know whether radioactive decay has always been constant we also can't know if everything always had a cause and we can't certainly know, at least right now, what the first cause of the universe is, scientific research suggests it's the big bang not god.

There is no way to prove that there is any Internet, that we are posting on Bitcointalk, that we exist, etc.  We can't even prove whether or not we are a figment of our own imagination.

However, in the common, standard scientific understanding of things, we can scientifically prove that God exists.