Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 114. (Read 845582 times)

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

In this thread: "skeptics" have no problem being critical of others' beliefs while neglecting to examine their own.

"Testable" and "observable"; for example, mediumship "is the only phenomenon that is directly relevant to the survival problem that can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control". That is interesting because it means there is evidence and a means to study it scientifically.

I posted a test and observations of telekinesis seen on camera and on EEG, but skeptics in this thread tried to dismiss the scientific evidence:
http://eegym.com/can-eeg-tell-if-telekinesis-is-a-magicians-trick-2/

Skeptics in this thread see no fault in dismissing science that does not fit their own made-up definition.

Troll?   Troll.

There is no such thing as outer space.

Extremely few have even been to outer space.

But I disagree about the idea of life that come out of nothing.

So you don't believe in ignore.

Maybe.  Whatever helps your fairy tale.

As long as you don't push your fairy tale on others. 

No astronaut ever grabbed a bunch of outer space and analyzed it. Extremely few have even been to outer space. The ISS is not in outer space.

Every astronaut is a liar in your fairy tale.  :/

There is no such thing as outer space. Sure, we see something. But we can't put our hands on it to test if it really exists, right?

There is no such thing as scientific proof for God because science needs testability and falsifiability. Science can only deal with what is perceivable by the senses, that is, with matter. God is not composed of matter and thus you can't scientifically study God. But keep in mind, there is no scientific proof for science either. All of science rests on philosophical axioms and once we bring philosophy into the picture, we can provide proof for God's existence.  

As I said, anything complex enough, by your definition and proof, could be the creator of the universe. There is no point in calling it a god. This thread was started by a religious person and his god was the christian god just like yours. I agree that a powerful being could be the creator of the universe (could) but even if he is, he definitely is not any of the gods in any of the religions we have. He is not a personal god, he doesn't look after us, he doesn't care about us. So it really doesn't matter, at least not now.

This is a picture of a rose:




"Rose" in English. Other languages say: roos, Poзa, 玫瑰, rosas, τριαντάφυλλo, Ua tia, and many, many, more.

If the word "God" is too generalized, or too religious-like, or too familiar, or for some other reason unacceptable, we can say: Supreme Being, Great First Cause, Creator, Absolute Being, All Powerful, Prime Mover, World Spirit, or any one of a great number of other word/terms for the powerful being that science shows was the starter of the universe.

For an idea of other ways to say "God," some without the religious connotations that arise in the minds of some people, see: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/god.

See how you just dismiss ideas because you want to? ''Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.''

No it's not out. Why would they need to act in a great concert? They would just need to act like humans act when they are building a bridge or a tower. I don't see how that disproves the idea of the possibility of different gods making this universe. All your scientific ''proof'' points out to a complex intelligent creator and that's it. You jump from that to god. I agree that if someone built the universe it had to be someone intelligent enough, obviously but that doesn't mean it's a god. It could just be a being that exists outside of our universe who is just far more advanced than us. We have advanced so much in the last years, imagine where humanity will be in 1000 years or in 1 million years, maybe we will create universes as well.

Multiple gods is out because they would have to be acting in such great concert, that they would essentially be one... like one corporation.

If we have a universe simulation, the complexity would be even greater. Because there is intelligence now, and there is entropy that has lowered the IQ from what it was thousands of years ago, that which put it all together would have been considered by people back then, to have greater intelligence than present people could understand it to have.

Scientifically speaking:
I don't know if it had two heads or any heads.
I don't know if it had hands.
I don't know if it had a beard.
I couldn't tell you if square would fit it.

There are thousands of questions that could be asked about it that we don't have scientific answers to. But the thing that it fits is what a God would have to be. And not just any idea of God. But an extremely great God, way beyond human understanding, just like the majority of the vast universe is beyond the understanding of mankind.

Perhaps if there were no intelligence in the universe, maybe then there wouldn't be any God. But because we have intelligence that has decreased over the millennia because of entropy, not only was the intelligence of man greater back then, but the intelligence of that which made the universe is far greater.

Intelligence smacks of reasoning ability. And reasoning ability that is as far beyond mankind as that which it would take to make a universe like ours, silently shouts "GOD" to anyone who can think.