Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 108. (Read 845582 times)

Lol what the fuck? Oh I just checked and he does that all the time, his last posts are all copy paste of other posts.

Better to believe in god than to not because if he is real you're safe if he isn't when you find out it won't matter.

Nice - copy/paste my words.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.21818420

This is actually pretty funny, because even if you misinterpret the concepts of "cause and effect, and entropy" (as you do), there is still no logical reason why your god could not be the FSM. You yourself have stated many times that, and I paraphrase: "as lowly humans we cannot know or comprehend the true power and influence of God". You've even admitted you don't really know exactly who or what god is!

Even if your flawed "scientific evidence" for the proof of god (which has been debunked by myself, and many others) was sound, it cannot specify what type of god you are talking about.

So, by your own logic, your god could indeed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail His divine noodly appendage!)...

And no, the Bible is not a sound rebuttal. Because it's just a fucking book, written by some dudes. I could argue, with similar integrity, that the Egyptian Book of the Dead proves the existence of the many Egyptian gods. The integrity of the evidence is identical - It's a book written by some other dudes.

And I stand by my point that a supernatural being cannot be proved by science, because by its nature it is supernatural, and therefore does not follow scientific laws. This renders the being's existence impossible to prove scientifically. I'm still baffled that some people don't understand this simple concept...

Yeah, I know. I already pointed out his miss use of entropy several times and that even if cause and effect is true for everything then god himself couldn't exist because what made god? It's a loop. He wont understand unfortunately.

This is a science thread... not a religion thread. Show us the proof that the FSM made everything through cause and effect, entropy, and complexity as it exists. If you can, you will have brought your little speech out of religion into science, and you will have proven that the FSM is God.

Again, i don't know if you are purposely trying not to understand it or you are just dumb. ''The universe is a closed system. There is always an increase in entropy.'' YES WE AGREE ON THAT. When you are building the house you are increasing the total entropy of the UNIVERSE but the house itself is still more ordered and complex than a pile of wood and nails. Is that so hard to understand?

''The concept of pure random doesn't even fit the universe.'' It doesn't matter if you think it fits or not, what matters is reality and the reality is that we don't know, we don't know whether everything has a cause or not, even if it did your argument fails miserably on answering what caused god, if god doesn't need a cause then the same can be applied to other things.

''If you want to use this kind of thinking, you can throw out almost 100% of any scientific investigation'' Which is what you are doing by assuming it was god?

The concept of pure random doesn't even fit the universe. The concept of God explains anything that might not be C&E (miracles). There are so many C&E operations, while no known pure random operations, that the odds of there being a pure random operation exist within the realm of what science considers impossible. C&E is what exists, scientifically.

Your whole talk here is moving in the direction of religion, again.

''Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven.'' No, thats what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave. The earth is not an isolated system. This means that an increase in order can occur on Earth as long as there is an energy input. If you take a pile of wood and a pile of nails and build a house the wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust. (The point being is that, that could be what's happening therefore no god is needed)

''Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations'' It hasn't been proved to exist in every operation therefore making it useless as proof for god, maybe radioactive decay is not random but maybe it is, we don't know, you don't know. No one knows if everything really has a cause.

Cause and effect has been proven in countless universal operations. Nobody is certain that spontaneity is even in evidence. When you study it, you will find that the concept of spontaneity doesn't fit in a universe such as ours.

There you are bringing religion into this topic again with "scientists believe."

The idea of a beginning that happens over and over isn't really a beginning except for the first time. You might as well talk about pixie dust.

Your explanation of "entropy" is based on theories which are essentially guesswork until they are proven. Thus, your explanations of entropy are false until they are proven. Language that shows theories to be factual is circular language. Until your theoretical entropy matches the facts of what we see entropy to be all around us, you might as well talk about pixie dust.

You aren't stupid. You are deceptive, and the things that you say easily show it. Hmmm. Maybe you are stupid.

There is evidence from many lines of evidence and I posted quite a bit of it.
If Chopra is a moron, why is he being defended by Hammeroff, a brilliant scientist?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7481048
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7515498

You allege that there is no evidence while ignoring all the ideas I presented. That is a skeptical fallacy.

''Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation'' Not proved. In fact as I said 100 times already, there are processes which scientists believe are truly random (radioactive decay) This only proves god existence in your mind, can't you see that no one agrees with you? Get over it already.

Entropy might show there is a beginning but it doesn't show whether the beginning is happening over and over again, a universe that creates itself would have a beginning but not really.

''Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea'' AGAIN after explaining to you what entropy really is you keep using it as you like because you are dishonest. Entropy does not prevent humans from evolving or a house to be made, are you stupid?

Empty space/nothingness/vacuum is something that we can't put our hands on for scientific investigation. Yet we do not debate its existence, even though we don't know if it follows any laws of the universe, or any laws at all.


The closest that we come for proving the existence of "nothing" is, we measure relationships and qualities of "things" which are not "nothing." When one proves that God exists by measuring "things" in one way or another, what's the difference?


Exactly the idea I was trying to get across. Regarding the proof for God, the "machinery" of the universe uses all the laws and many more, that we use when we build our machines. The only example we have of our machines being built is, they have people as builders. The machines of the universe are so far in advance of our machines that they prove that there was a Supremely Greater Builder than mankind. This fits the definition of God.



Cause and effect with lack of any spontaneous operation that was not produced by cause and effect, proves programming. Programming proves a programmer. We have have seen no other example in the universe of programming where a programmer doesn't exist? C&E programming is the core of the universe that we have seen. Why do I call it programming? Look at the next paragraph.

Complexity as great as it is, proves that the whatever caused all things to exist as they do was extremely great. Who but someone that fits the definition of God could set in place the countless C&E operations to produce things as great as the intelligence of man, man's emotion, and multitudes of complex operations in the universe? After all, you don't grab a handful of sand, toss it into the air, and a computer is the result. There is no evidence of anything like this ever coming close to happening. There is always planning, and a whole lot of work that goes into making a computer and programming it. Why would anyone think that this was not true for the setting up of the universe, as well?

On top of this, there is no random that we have observed in the universe. What we call random is simply complexity that is so great that we don't know how to follow the "operations" of it. There is no random in the universe.

The logic of the C&E operations in the universe is so extremely great, that it almost proves God all by itself.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning. Why is this important? Without a beginning, one might conclude that C&E operations existed forever, and that they were the norm without God. Entropy shows that this idea is flawed. Entropy shows the flaw in the whole evolution advancement idea, that things could grow to be more complex rather than growing to be less complex. There is no evolution. There is only devolution. Entropy proves it... the breaking down of complexity.

This all proves that God exists. Does "nothing/emptiness/empty-space" exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of it to show that it exists. We understand it by seeing the relationships between the things that we can lay hands on. Does God exist? Yes, even though we cannot do any hands-on experiments of Him to show that He exists. We understand Him by understanding the relationships between cause and effect, complexity, and entropy.

BADecker thanks for the reply, but we're not really getting anywhere here. I'll just address a couple of your points.

Your comments about philosophy are a little flawed, I still don't think you quite understand what it is. You talk about "no absolute proof of philosophy", this is an oxymoron. Philosophy itself, is an example of an a priori concept. The same could be said of any subject, for example theology, or even the study of Bigfoot. By it's own definition, it must logically exist without a doubt - we can use reason and logic alone to prove its existence, without evidence.

That's not to say all the ideas in any subject are absolutely proven. Only fields which rely on pure logic and reason, such as mathematics, boast facts that can be 100% proven.

My mention of "belief" was on topic, read my sentence again. My point was that it is possible for humans to debate the existence of entities which they don't fully understand, such as gods or black holes. The problem is obviously more tricky with a god, because it does not follow the laws of the universe. This is my whole point, and you're still not getting it.

Your last few paragraphs go on to take my words out of context, I'm not quite sure where you get the idea that I said outer space doesn't exist, or the space between atoms etc. And I also don't see how, even if this were true, that it would somehow be proof of god.

You absolutely can provide evidence for "nothing", such as the physical space between atoms, or the vacuum of outer space. The first simple example that comes to mind would be that dissolving salt in water actually decreases the volume of water. So there must be some empty space for that salt to occupy. There is a lot more evidence, I'll leave you to look it up if you want.

You certainly don't need to be able to "grab hold of something" to provide evidence for it, are you serious? Even if that were true, can you grab hold of your god?

Let me put my initial point another way, to try and help you understand:

1. Some things are 100% true, such as mathematical formulae (eg. 1+1=2) and tautological statements (eg. "all bachelors are unmarried"). We don't need empirical evidence to prove them, because the logic in the concepts automatically makes them true.

2. Established science laws and theories, are virtually 100% true. Things like the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of gravity etc. They can never be proven 100% because they rely on empirical evidence. However, evidence for them is overwhelming, they are falsifiable, and no-one has ever produced repeatable experiments that prove them wrong. So most people consider them as scientific fact - they are as close as we can get.

3. Then we have more fringe scientific ideas, such as String Theory (not a real scientific theory, because it cannot be tested and is therefore not currently falsifiable). It makes sense, the numbers add up, but we have no way of providing empirical evidence for it.

4. Lastly we have hypotheses about supernatural stuff, ideas that don't follow the laws of the universe as we currently understand them. Telepathy, ghosts, homeopathic medicine etc. The general point about these types of things is that repeatable experiments have shown them to be false. Not 100% false of course (a priori knowledge), but no solid empirical evidence for them exists.

Which of these 4 categories do you think the idea of a god would best fit into?



Then we have

recently watched this video, pretty old, but explains failure of evolution theory by means of genetics, highly recommend to watch this video to anyone who interested on this topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehpRVEA17nw

Anything that science has proof for, gives the philosophers far better understanding for forming correct philosophy about it. Why? Because they know it is true. They don't have to guess about it. They only have to determine the philosophical reason why it works the way it does.

One of the things that philosophy understands is that because there is no absolute science proof for anything, there is no absolute proof for philosophy, as well. It all might be game-playing. Playing the game is fun.

Bible philosophy is based in witness accounts of what happened. Then the philosophy is developed for why it happened.


Since you mention "belief," try to remain on topic with science rather than religion. There might be a bunch of science, such as black holes, dark matter and subatomic particles, but foundational science is cause and effect, complexity, and entropy. When combined as they are in this universe, there is no alternative other than a Supreme Being. The term "God" is simply used for brevity... because it fits.


What you are essentially saying is that outer space isn't known to exist. And when you evacuate nearly 100% out of a vacuum chamber, the "nothing" in there is not really known to exist. We prove that "nothing" or outer space exist, by analyzing the things that DO exist, and their relationships. Same with proving God.


Well, are you really trying to say that science has no proof that outer space exists? Are you really trying to say that the empty space between the electrons and the nucleus of an atom doesn't exist? You better rethink your definition of scientific proof.


Exactly! And I couldn't have said it better myself. They have stood the test of time, since the existence of cause and effect, complexity, and entropy have been understood for thousands of years. Scientifically they have been understood since, at least, Newton. More than anything else, they have stood the test of time. They are basic, foundational science.



Thank you for the color. It certainly makes things easier. Since you are helping me prove that God exists, I thank you. Because if God doesn't exist through the scientific analysis of the things in nature and the universe, then the empty space in outer space doesn't exist, and the atoms do not exist, and lots of other things do not exist that science has proven to exist.

Since you are trying to say all these other things don't exist (because their existence is proven the same way as the existence of God, Who you deny), then what are scientists really trying to do with all their blabber and mathematical equations that they are constantly using and doing?... since they already know that "nothingness" has never been proven to exist, because they can't grab hold of it and analyze it scientifically.

Thanks for helping to show the proof that God exists.

I certainly agree that god can be thought of as a hypothesis that explains important issues about metaphysics and the origin of life. Except that it's a terribly weak hypothesis with no evidence.

Then you mention "cutting edge science papers from Deepak Chopra".... and I'm done.

Deepak Chopra is a charlatan who does not understand the fundamentals of basic quantum physics - I understand more than him about quantum physics and I don't even have a degree. Look up some youtube videos of him trying to debate actual physicists, the guy is a moron.

If you think this is a backwards idea, you misunderstand what philosophy means. It is primarily the study of existence, reason, knowledge and crucially, logic.

There is no such thing as a "philosophical explanation" for a thing that science has proof for. In fact, philosophy might argue semantically that a lot of science does not have true proof for many things, as a lot of science is based on a posteriori knowledge. This means it is based on empirical evidence, and can never be proven 100%. There are some exceptions, such as mathematical proofs (e.g. 2+2=4), which we call a priori, and is 100% true.

You could try applying this logic to your own belief in the Bible, as by definition this is a posteriori knowledge, and therefore cannot be 100% true.

That's because their great minds are far too inadequate for analyzing something as great as God is.

Many witnesses of the past have been subject to the the strength of God. A few of them have written down what they witnessed in the Bible. Other religious books have writings of witnesses to God's power.

Many people today experience God's power and "moving" in their lives.

If their great minds are too inadequate, then both mine and your's probably are too. However, this isn't the issue at hand - you don't need to be a genius to understand the logic behind the belief in a god, no matter how great and powerful that god might be. The key is understanding the logic and evidence to form an educated opinion about the entity, and how likely it is to exist. A scientific example would be the existence of black holes, dark matter and subatomic particles. No-one has seen them, but the evidence strongly points to their existence.

I'm not going to address your bullshit about "witnesses of the strength of god" or "people experiencing god's power", because this is the opposite of scientific evidence, and is simply anecdotal bollocks. This thread is about scientific evidence, lets keep it on topic.


God made the laws of physics. He didn't make the physics of this universe to be something that contains all possible laws. Because of this, He can mover through the universe using other laws, and even things that are not laws. After all, the garage builder is within and without the garage He is building, but He is never part of it.

Consider outer space... or empty space in general. You can prove it exists by observing the way material and energy act within it. But you can't prove emptiness or nothing by analyzing it directly. God is proven in the same way. "Nothing" is not the source of everything; God is.

You've just proven yourself wrong with this paragraph. If god can move through the universe using other laws, and "even things that are not laws", then how can we possibly prove his existence with our own laws? As I said, it is logically impossible. Obtaining scientific proof of god with our current understanding of science is like asking how many hamburgers it would take to kill a ghost - it's a ridiculous notion.


Sounds like you are using the scientific method in the way you want to use it, rather than the way that it works with everything.

No, my definition and use of the scientific method is sound. Look at my previous paragraph to see why we cannot prove or disprove an entity which does not abide by our current understanding of the laws of physics.


Did Isaac Newton have peer reviewed papers? Scientists use complexity all the time in their scientific examination, but do they have peer reviewed papers for complexity? If they have these papers, get them out and read them. They prove God exists.

Seeing as you are the one that is adamant that the existence of god is scientifically proven, the burden of proof is on you to show some academic literature that shows some evidence. Granted, Isaac Newtons papers may not have been peer-reviewed, but they have stood the test of time. Your sentences about "peer-reviewed papers for complexity" make no sense. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.



As you said. You are blind. Just because you think you are an atheist almost literally proves it.



Another nonsense sentence, with no logical rebuttal.

To summarise, a supernatural god cannot be proven with current science because such a god, by definition, does not abide by the physical laws of our known universe.

PS quotes fucked up so I used a different colour.

GOD could be thought of as a hypothesis which can solve important issues like the Origin of Life and many other mysteries. According to the scientific digest "A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics", science has shown that there is something very mysterious at the origin of time and space. The cutting edge science papers from Stuart Hammeroff and Deepak Chopra explain the quantum origin of mind and contain some of the latest knowledge.

The evidence supporting survival is so overwhelming that it leads one to consider that GOD is a valid philosophical concept. What about the top 20 spirit-contact cases and the top 20 reincarnation cases? What about the important research of Cunningham indicating that the communication of anomalous information is verifiable by anyone willing to consider the evidence (Content-Source Problem)? What about the failures of skeptical research and the constant skeptical misdirection? Herbert Spencer explained that all theories of origin imply the inconceivable while other eminent researchers through their own observations documented the spiritual dimension of reality.

http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html

I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.

The reason this thread has 400 pages - you can't actually discuss anything with him with all his BS.  :/