Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 118. (Read 845582 times)

This is exactly why I use basic, foundational science to show that God exists.

Everyone understands basic entropy a little. We all can see it in old age. Scientific laws regarding it are readily accessible in books and the internet. Scientific theory that tries to explain how it works, still doesn't understand it. But entropy is observable all around us.

Certainly science understands complexity more than anyone. Medical science has been trying to cure all kinds of diseases for ages. Nature is so extremely complex, that science has been failing with many of its cures. If science has been able to extend the length of lives of people, it isn't by much. Consider billionaire David Rockefeller. He died at age 101. If science had been able to keep anyone alive and young, he would have paid for it with his $billions.

Cause and effect is the basics of science. Scientists continually try to find the scientific causes that make/made everything that exists. Whatever they research, they continually look for the cause of it. No spontaneous generation of anything has ever been found. There is always a cause for something.

These 3 - cause and effect, complexity, entropy - point to the existence of God. How does it work? Like this.

Entropy shows that there was a beginning. If there had been no beginning, and if everything had been going on as it is forever, entropy would have destroyed all complexity long ago. Because the complexity is as great as it is, there was a beginning, and not too far in the past.

Entropy also shows that complexity is running down. In general, the past was more complex than what exists today. We do not find complexity coming out of something less complex, except temporarily. Now and again a couple of low intelligence will be parents of a genius. But the genius genes were inside the parents, even though they were not evident in the parents themselves. Complexity is always waning because of entropy.

Cause and effect is the greatest. Everything has a cause... or many causes. And the causes are effects of other causes. Like entropy and complexity, cause and effect are all-pervading... present throughout the whole system of nature.

In the same way that you can cause something complex to happen - if you think about it and plan it out and do it through cause and effect - even so nature has a complex plan built into it. How often do you throw a handful of sand into the air, and reap something complex that you can understand? The way the sand lands may produce a complex pattern, but the complexity of even that is beyond understand. It takes great working among people to produce complexity that is slightly great - automobile, computer, rocket, good medicine, etc.

The point? Whatever set cause and effect into place, to produce the complexity of life through essentially throwing a handful of sand into the air, must be extremely complex within itself. And since the complexity in us includes intelligence, emotion, thinking, feeling, and a host of other complex things, such complexity must be withing the "genetics" of whatever started cause and effect.

The best understanding of what this starter of cause and effect is, is found in our word "God."

I don't anything about the EEGym-Company, so I can't say how trustworthy they are. But proofing telekinesis has nothing to do with proofing the existence of god. So even if your article is 100% true, it doesn't proof anything regarding our god question here.

"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.

I gave many reasons and arguments and they were not adequately addressed. The primary one to consider is whether a modern understanding of the content-source problem supports the claims about the "inerrant" Bible. I showed that the moral content of that book is inadequate and that Paul adulterated the teachings.

I think that the mission here is to prove that he *exists*, not that he is not. Unless it will be an endless thing.
Can you prove that the spaghetti monster is exist? NO. So it means it is? NO.

Yeah, my bad. I'm used to religious extremists in this topic

ehm... well ... I am not?! Because I don't believe in god. I thought that because of the way I chose my words, it was pretty clear how I feel about this topic ^^. Apparently not.

If you can't understand it how are you convinced that what he is doing is the right thing?

Well, god doesn't make any mistakes. If something happens, then it happens for a reason! Apparently there is a very good reason why e.g. so many children starve to death ... but of course we stupid humans cannot understand it. 

And yet, everything bad that happens on earth is not his fault...   

Because they are pussies to admit they only believe in gods blindly. They know deep inside there is really no evidence or proof for their existence and they only believe in them because they are desperately trying to find a purpose for life.

That is true. I just don't understand why believers try so hard to combine science with the supernatural. On one side, god is this almighty power that is just everywhere, sees everything, knows everything - but then he is still provable through science. Doesn't make it even more sense to say ... well you can't proof gods existence BECAUSE he is so powerful!

You make good points... unfortunately there can be scientific proof if you make up your own definition of "SCIENTIFIC".  

Ohh boy are we still talking about this ...

I am a little bit surprised why this is even a thing. Despite if god exists or not ... there can't be a SCIENTIFIC proof for the existence. We are talking about an almighty "creature". The fact that god is "everywhere", but it wasn't possible to measure his presence till now, means ... we don't have the equipment yet, or he is so powerful that he can hide his existence, or he just doesn't exist. Nevertheless, there is no SCIENTIFIC proof today. And NO ... wether mentions of god in an old book, nor some people telling about seeing god is not a SCIENTIFIC proof.

It is important essential to understand that BD has his own definition of "science" and "proof" than the rest of the world.

In his little world, everything is proof the FSM exists.  To the rest of us, there is no proof at all.

Don't be too hard on my brainwashed buddy.  His parents did it to him - he was innocent.

Thank you, but I am not a native speaker. You have found one orthographical error. You are so awesome.

Try to speak so fluent in polish as I am in english.

All I was saying was on the subject of the lack of the reasons to replace the Bible. I know that all you atheist can do is changing the subject and name calling. I do not know if you are doing so because you have hard time reading, do not know what a rhetorical figure of speech is, or you just do not know the meaning of words in general. If I would have to bet I would say all above.

If you think it is only fairy tale it is your choice. But I do not understand your shallow use of this word. There are a lot of things that can be called that. All you do is reserve that for religion. Why? What else do you think is a fairy tale? I would say you just create a fraudulent impression of the ability to think critically.

I can not see any virtue in being proud of not seeing anything spiritual or transcedent. What is the virtue of lacking something? Is there such a virtue? I guess not.

oh i don't know, maybe same reason as someone like you could
believe in a non-existent invisible omnipotent sky daddy and bible bullshit fairy tales written by goat herders 2000 years ago?

...btw  Mr Genius...  "buffoon"  is spelled with 2 f's  ...  just sayin...

Certainly a god could exist and could have been the creator of the universe however there is no proof that he did.

The thing you keep missing are the two little words "scientific proof." If you want to start a religion topic, go ahead. Scientific proof for God doesn't have anything to do with non-scientific religion. It doesn't explain nearly as much as the various "god" religions. Why not? Because there is a lot of science to scientifically find out regarding God. Science barely has a handle on it.

All this means is that science proves God exists. It doesn't prove much about God. It might not prove enough to tell if the Bible is most accurate, or if Flying Spaghetti Monster info is most accurate. The real question is, can God be real against scientific proof?

See that's what I don't understand because you always claim that yet you believe in a specific god which is the god from the Bible. That god cannot be the flying spaghetti monster.