Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 129. (Read 845582 times)

Also 99.999999% of scientific discoveries, theories, etc. ACTUALLY WORK. WOW HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE. Even evolution theory has applications. Where are all the applications of religion, the bible or god? I haven't seen yet an hospital based on prayer. Meanwhile you live in your magic world, science works, saves lives, it even made possible for you to write all this stupid shit.

My whole point was that science changes but it doesn't mean it's bad. Your reading comprehension is trash.

Those were all adjusted, changed. Classic mechanics is working in astronomy only because they invent patches into it. New constants like light speed etc etc. Just because you do not know how science changes it does not mean it does not.

Yes I have heard that in academia as well.... blablabla unchanged blablabla. Thats simply not true.

Go and watch this:

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

Ok... Believe you accademia. But do not say I cannot write here. You act like a bully that you are.

I used definition and I had fit 100% into the definition of proof and yet you act like a bully...... Thats all you can do.


Many religions are dumb. I agree. Most of them and? You are smart? Yeah right..........

Scientists do not debate about whether your fairy tale is true.  They have common sense and live in reality.


Common sense and religion do not go hand in hand. 

what part of science is compatible exactly? The one who says the earth and universe are far older than 6000 years old? The one who says the start of the universe was the big bang? We don't even know if such a god is possible so I really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. Yes they do change, so what? You religious people use that as if it was bad, it's not. Scientists admit when they are wrong unlike you who think god is the answer and that's it, nothing can change your 10 year old mind.

look at some over-arching theories in physics as examples:
Classical mechanics
Special relativity
General relativity
General relativity has been enormously successful and has generated unique expectations that were later borne out in observations, but it too seems up for a change. For example, general relativity doesn't mesh with what we know about the interactions between extremely tiny particles (which the theory of quantum mechanics addresses). Will physicists develop a new theory that simultaneously helps us understand the interactions between the very large and the very small? Time will tell, but they are certainly working on it!
All the theories above, worked — that is, they generated accurate expectations, were supported by evidence, opened up new avenues of research, and offered satisfying explanations. Classical mechanics, by the way, is still what engineers use to design airplanes and bridges, since it is so accurate in explaining how large (i.e., macroscopic) and slow (i.e., substantially slower than light) objects interact. Nevertheless, the theories described above did change. How? A well-supported theory may be accepted by scientists, even if the theory has some problems. In fact, few theories fit our observations of the world perfectly. There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory.

You do not understand science, you do not understand scientific theories and you should not post anymore because you are embarrassing yourself, go pray to god to give you some common sense.

You are just unaware. I don't blame you. You just live in some funny farm. You are unaware, that there are various different paradigms in science that are not compatible with eachother. Scientists (your funny farm not include scientists) actualy debate with eachother you know?

All of the prophesies in Bible had come true mr. "science". It is just not a wide spread knowledge how it was to interpret them correctly.

That's all your religion is - the promise of something happening "soon".

Of course, nothing ever does, since it is a fairy tale.

And it will soon to be revealed it was a scam like 99,999999999999999% of scientific "discoveries".

There is no such thing as modern scientific consensus. There is an academia consensus. Those are very corrupted bunch of guys. If you do not see that science stands in the brink of paradigm shift you know not of science mr. "science".

Modern science has proven your god did not flood the earth, nor did your god create the universe 6,000 years ago.

You are living in a fairy tale.

No no no. You use projection unto me. Very common psychological flaw. You my friend do not know what I am talking about. I have told you what I have ment. Modern science is compatible with describtion of God in the Genesis of what he do and govern.

If you think thats easy just look at science theories. They are incompatible with science in 30 years. And here you have full compatibility 3500 past.

You devote your life, your time, your efforts, your beliefs, you adjust your world view based on sci-fi scientism. Thats worshipping it.

God was proven the be able to exist by science, when?

''This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen'' What did they know exactly?

''God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not.'' Like prayer? Which does not work?

So in summary you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and don't want to admit that you just believe in it because you do.

I do not believe this book. I believe in the message of this book, not literally everything as a manual. Jews have abandoned God many times. I believe Jesus words were true. And we should not abandon God again... He does not deserve to be abandoned. In order to understand NT you have to read OT. Thats why I still think its Holy book. Even if its sometimes gruesome and mixed up.

If I would believe in a book I would call God being a book... You just use a sophistry here. Words are meaningful as long as they have meaning in sentences and stories. You can nitpick some word or sentence and call its meaningless.... Well... they could be. But with the whole story they have a huge meaning.

The Bible is not fit for worship, consider that the story of Isaac has no real compassion, it is just YHWH getting what he wants, but a good father would not behave that way. Ritual child sacrifice is Satanic.

It turns out that your opinions about the history of the Bible are subject to criticism:

The consensus around the documentary hypothesis has partly collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.[5] The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.[31] Rolf Rendtorff (1925–2014), building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.[32] This led to the current position which sees only two major sources in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomist (confined to the Book of Deuteronomy) and the Priestly (confined to the books Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers).[33]

The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.[34] Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.[35] The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.[33] The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place it somewhat later, in the Hellenistic (333–164 BCE) or even Hasmonean (140–37 BCE) periods[36]


So consider the facts, perhaps you have been blinded from the truth because of your faith in that book.

According to Bible you rejected God. Yeah. God was speaking to people since begining. I have no reason not to believe it was once a holy book inspired by God. Why would I?


Yes. I had read it personally. So you can say he spoken to me using the words of High and only priest Jesus. lol

You do not know when the OT books were compiled and in fact the Documentary Hypothesis has largely been discredited. What is known is that Bhagavad Gita is dated to around 3200 BC, so why not consider the God of Arjuna since that book is more ancient than the Bible? Why not consider other literature which pours forth wisdom and has less questionable origins? BADecker thinks that the Bible is consistent and factual all the way through from Genesis to Galatians, but you will not go so far? I already showed how Paul invented Christianity so I would suspect that the Documentary Hypothesis is wrong (this is already the consensus of Bible scholars) and that the OT was basically invented too.
You do not know about which sins will be forgiven; did God speak to you specifically about that?

You asked for it.You do not want to give me a definition. I will use a dictionary and choose mine:

proof:

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.

Process is like this. 1500 bc was written Bible that describes what God is. It was all proven to be able to exist by science.

This proof is strong because none of the witnesses back then 1500 bc could know it could happen. So by it not contradicting itself is a small proof. No forgery of evidence could be possible, because 1500 we had not know those forces.

Principles of reasoning (deduction) are given in the Exodus. Phareo was proclaiming himself a God. His magicians could make things attributed to God. God was playing with them until they had found that they cannot make life out of dirt.

That's how God see you - Babilonian scientism usurpers. You cannot make life. Hey... you cannot even find how that happened and prove it. Therefore by the principle of reasoning (deduction) the God of Moses is proven. By your unability to create life from dirt.

God sees you that you worship idols that you claim what they do, while they do not. Like wooden statues that are claimed to do something while it was blatantly obvious it was not so. Like quantum physics today. Its only theoretical. Like it was theoretical that carved wood make lighting, or fire or such. By the principle of reasoning(deduction) it is proof of God words remaining true.

Sins against man will be forgiven. Sins of blasphemy (taking place of God) will not be. So it would be wise to repent from your scientism idols.

Do not claim I have to use induction (from observation to reason) as well. I have used deduction and its perfectly logicly fitting with the definition. Principles of reasoning are not violated.

So in summary. Proof by my definition is true when definitions from one statement are the same as in other statements. They fit and interlock eachother therefore they prove eachother.

Your fairy tale science also believes the tooth fairy exists.

Prove it as per the thread title.  Otherwise, you are just giving away free candy for clean teeth.

But science proves God exists way more than science proves that He doesn't exist.

While this might be true, nobody is doing it. The fact that God exists is proven by science more and more every day.

You don't need to explain your personal fairy tales, UNLESS you try to push them on others.  Then you can expect people to question your gullibility.