Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 105. (Read 845809 times)

Apparently you never thought about the science you studied. It proves that God exists, and is supremely powerful, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

apparently you never studied science... or what constitutes proof. just like my buddy BADecker  


incoming pious word salad reply in 3..2...1.....

Just btw would the answer Yes, scientific proof that God exists! or No, scientific proof that God does not exists! change anything...poverty, injustice or any other men made problem we leave with? Would God suddenly keep his promise to protect the one who are in need?

Another thing i just remembered from a good interview were a guy sad something like:...Since the human race as a historical species worshiped around 10000 different gods and monotheist believe in just one,...atheist just believe in one less. No offense, this joke also does not represent my way of believe.  

I think it must be true that some sort of creative force exists.  I think it is a stretch to assume that that force is something sentient.  It's very possible that our universe is simply a natural program with base rules at the lowest level.  Then through endless different permutations and combinations different elements are formed, then molecules, and so forth.  It's simply an assumption to say that all of those are consciously designed. If you look around the universe, you will see that everything organizes down to the same simple shapes and physical behaviors.  Very complex things can arise from very simple parts.

For example:look at your neighbor's house,ask him/her:did someone build your house?surely your neigbhor answered,YES,because does not exist if no one build it.Then look around you,your garden,the trees,the flowers,and all the living and non living things in the world,then ask your self:did someone create all of these?just the your neighbor's house,the answer is YES.(Genesis 1:1-31)

Another proof that god existed through the bible and explained and confirmed by science.
In harmony with the views of many scientists today, the ancient Hebrews also believed that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1. Also, some 3,500 years ago, God revealed to his servant Job that the earth ‘hangs on nothing,’ or is suspended in space. (Job 26:7) And finally, more than 2,500 years ago, the prophet Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle or sphere.—Isaiah 40:22.*

Yes, the Bible does harmonize with scientific truths about the natural world. In fact, the two fields of study are more than compatible—they beautifully complement each other. To disregard either one is to leave unopened a door to the knowledge of God.

This was the one thing that I never really understood about origin arguments based on god.  If god existed in the beginning, then it to must have been created somehow, so it's also just as likely that the universe itself was there at the beginning. 

The best logical idea I have that allows for a god is that god exists outside of the universe, like a programmer running a simulation able to make tweaks.  However for such a large scale simulation then it is likely utilizing something like procedural generation where the programmer does not have full control. Even in that scenario we are left with the question of how the higher level univers of the gods was created.  Ultimately, it just ends up looping back on itself until you accept that SOMETHING is simply the original state.

You've never provided proof against the existence of the tooth fairy.   

You are missing the point. It isn't my proof. It is standard scientific proof that all scientists know about, if they think about it for a moment. But you haven't provided any proof for or against the existence of God. It's beginning to look like you don't really know anything scientific at all.

Too bad you dont even understand entropy and too bad your ''proof'' is self refuting (everything has a cause, yet god doesn't?)

You simply don't understand what you are talking about. "Photons, atoms or subatomic particles" are an environment of matter as well as energy. No matter contains matter within the essence of itself. All matter shares empty space. Empty space contains matter. You really need to brush up on your basic science.


An atom resides within empty space. There is empty space within the atom, between the electrons, and between the electrons and the nucleus. Empty space is within, without, and "flowing" through all material and energy.

The only difference with God is, He even made the empty space. So, we absolutely can use the relationships between photons, atoms or subatomic particles in empty space to prove that God exists.



Therefore, scientific proof for God absolutely can be compared to evidence, or proof, for "empty space".

There's a gaping hole in your logic. With empty space, we can compare it to "non-empty space": We can see how photons, atoms or subatomic particles react in an environment of "empty space" and an environment containing matter. Therefore we can obtain actual data, and look at the differences between the two environments.

With a god, such a comparison is logically impossible. We can't compare an environment with, or without a god, because only one scenario is logically possible.

Therefore, scientific proof of a god cannot be compared to evidence, or proof, of "empty space".

Your move...

The only scientific proof that God exist is us. The earth. The Sun. The water. We are the living scientific proof that God really exist. And he's watching over us.

''Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it'' You mean God?

You simply didn't understand entropy correctly. You think that evolution can't happen because of entropy which again is simply wrong, evolution does not violate any scientific law. You also think people can't get smarter or we can't advance because of entropy which is again just plain wrong and there is plenty of evidence that we can indeed advance.

''The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.'' You mean wrong? Just admit that you didn't understand entropy correctly lol, stop being so pathetic.

truely god exist he is the only creater of this world and we shall return to him

Actually, it's that you don't quite understand science correctly.

There are two parts to science:
1. That which is readily known;
2. Theory, which isn't readily known, although it may come close at times.

The part of entropy that you are talking about is theory.

The part of entropy that I am talking about is readily known.

Your problem is that you constantly try to imply that entropy theory is readily known to be fact, when it is not. Consider your stupid idea that the beginning happens over and over. Such an idea belongs to the realm of science fiction. There is no basis in fact for it, even though scientifically speaking, it might happen. Maybe the moon is made of green cheese, and all the tests of moon rocks are flawed in some way. Could happen, but not likely by a long shot.

I was so enjoying these topic.. So many opinions..
But, still in me, I think there is no scientific explanation about God..

However since you don't even understand entropy correctly, your assumptions can't be scientifically correct.

The focus isn't proving that empty space exists. The focus is the way we prove that empty space exists. How do we prove that empty space exists?

We don't prove that empty space exists is by "grabbing hold" of empty space and analyzing it. We don't really even have a way of doing this "grabbing hold." Well, if not by "grabbing hold," then how do we prove empty space exists?

Here's how. We analyze material and energy, and the relationships between material and energy, and we can prove that empty space exists by this analysis, right?

Same with God. We analyze the relationships between material and energy in cause and effect activity, and we prove that God exists through this analysis. Complexity simply shows that God is definitely a Supreme Being. And Entropy shows that there was a beginning, which rules out that this is the way things always were.

The word "God" and its definitions are a weak word to use when considering the Supreme Being scientifically. As I have said in other posts, use "The Great First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Almighty Power," or any one of a number of words that better describe the Supreme Being.

But understand one thing. Whatever He/It is, He/It is an entity that is supremely (probably infinitely) far advanced and capable beyond what we are.

There is no scientific proof that God exist... of course we all know that scientifically no one can really prove that God exist but we cannot deny the hard to explain creation of life if where it really starts, the creation of galaxies and the void. If we cannot explain it through science we just turn around and say "God made it!".

So BADecker, you understand that you can prove the existence of empty space?