Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 144. (Read 845582 times)

You had gave me "evidences" That I and others have shown that they might as well be an "evidences" for creationism. I agree some things are facts. But just because they are facts, does not mean they prove your position. Can you read with understanding?

The difference between me and you is that I have higher intelectual standards and I am aware those "evidences" are weak. Either for evolution or creation. Let me remind you what was your possition and what was mine because you have clearly low memory:


I don't think you understood why I was quotting the bible. I was quotting the bible, because you have no proof that is wrong, and everyday life is a proof its correct.

To prove your claim you need to give some counter argument which you had failed to do.

Thank you for giving me the evidences for creationism. If you want to talk to me you need to explain few things:

1. Explain complexity of dna counter to simplicity of evolution.
2. Explain the catastrophic genesis of fossils. Why biologists are not verifying geologist and vice versa. Why do they use circular logic? Circular logic should be the enemy of scientific enquiry. By the way, what does bodily remains prove other than - the body died? Nothing. And all of the evidences is gathered by one organisation that is of low reputation. Smithsonians.
3. Why there is a beneficial effects of parasites on human health?
4. Why do we have fenotypes and not only genotypes.
5. Find an example of a specie creation that we could verify scientificly
6. Why are your classification not verifiable scientificly?
7. Why species are being extinct in ennourmous pace, yet no new specie was born. Don't tell me dingo its just a reverse engineered new race of a dog. Hows that we do not see new stars, yet we see stars dying day by day.

For all those questions there is a way simplier more fit to the Ockham (btw the guy was correct that the papal seat is the antichrist written in John revelation) razor answers like:

1. Because our creator is complex. He gave his footprint in our dna. Its not like 90% or so of dna is useless - its a footprint of God finger. It sound unscientific? Because you have an allergy to the word God.


Btw how is that a not a compromitation of evolution that the closest specie to our dna is a pig, not a chimpansee. How did that happen? Was our ancestor a pig, not a monkey? Hows dna not disprove evolution?

Are we canibalistic monsters eating our brothers in evolution? Yikes.

2. The biologist does not verify geologist because they would lose grands if proven wrong. Money talks.
3. Becuase everything is made of love. The recent medical discoveries is showing this that illness is the process of getting rid of toxins, by the sweat and other bodily fluids. Cancer is just a process of avoiding getting ill and die from toxemity. There are tons of scientific works including etology proves that the species that are "evil" had extinct because they does not belong to the "love theme".
4. Because we are made to adapt to our enviroment, by the benevolence. Otherwise free will would not be possible.
5. They had not found it and they will not find it. Why? Because its a hoax.
6. Look at point 5.
7. The law of entropy.

I had told you that, yet I would not want my point of view to be taught in public schools. Its not evidenced enough to influence young minds. Your point of view is not evidenced as well, yet you lie it does.

I agree with the undeniable fact that there are a variations within a species. But you must a agree as well that its unfactual that there is made a variation outside of a specie. That had not happened anywhere. Its just nonfactual nonsense proving evolution is nonfactual at best. Maybe they are not conciously fraudsters so I should not name them such.

Exactly what I was talking about, rambling rambling and more rambling yet you have no proof for your beliefs. I gave you mine, Yes I do believe in evolution and perhaps the big bang but I also gave you a lot of evidence for it, it might be wrong but it's still a lot of evidence. You have none, you can only quote the bible and come up with a silly ''proof'' of god, ''cows make cows''

I look at the evidence and I try to interpret it to the best of my knowledge. If a god exists and he wants to torture me forever because I didn't believe in him even though I was using the logic and reasoning he gave me then he is either evil, doesn't exist or is fucking retarded.

If I may speak for myself. Oh yeah. I had challanged it. Firstly I believed very strongly in good making as a child. Then I saw very early that noone - literally noone is taking a gospel message seriously. So I had felt ashamed and became an atheist like you. Later on I was fascinated with Dawkins. I was thinking Im superiour to all those silly hipocritical believers.

Then I saw its all bs as well. None of the "science man" is actually treating it seriously. They are a hypocritical just like all of the rest.

Later on I had found that its a deliberate and planned action for people to be classified as herds. Of believers, nonbelievers and labels this or that. Like they would be some form of animals that need to be social engineered.

So then, after a long time, I realised I have been duped by the society to believe, that I have to belong in some herd. If you are free from the need of belonging you can actually explore your own humanity, some ideas that people are not willing to because that would mean they do not longer belong to their herd.

The words of Christ are real. The herd that is being led is led to their slaughter. A slaughter of soul. We need all we can to stop that.

Society is far from being free from myths. Like all primitive societies our myths are our "realities". Your "scientific" reality is just a variation of a myth of Cargo, described by Baudrillard.

In essence you have things that you take for granted. They are a supermarket stuff. And on one shelf you have "scientific documentaries on discovery channel". You are not interested how that is made, if that meat is actualy a meat. You just take it for granted that in some magical way some cargo culture will spoon feed with all you need. Its a MALL CULTURE and you are fine example of one such a guy.

You are asking us to spoon feed you and you expect it to be in the form of a supermarket product. Packaged as a science by some mister package guy, errr I mean doctor. It need to be certified because thats the rules of this silly mythical society.

Its a deeply ingrained in many myths society that claims its mythless. For me thats a peak of hipocrisy.

You don't have proof of your personal death, either, because it doesn't exist while you are alive, and you don't know anything after you are dead... not even about your death.

But the physical object, and the computer program, are thought about physically, because the thought process includes a bunch of electrical impulses that run around the physical nerves inside the brain.

What proof do you have for anything that you say ? None either. Doesnt prevent you to insult everyone, make bold statement and pretend it's absolute truth , science, and yadda yadda.

None of my familly believe in the bible, if anything that proove how you are just full of a priori, and make bold statement without proof or anything just based on a priori on things you have zero clue about.

Stop pretending you are a scientist.

You are just indoctrinated to hate religion.

"We know that God exists because mathematics is consistent and we know that the devil exists because we cannot prove the consistency." -- Andre Weil

You keep saying all the proof is out there but you give me none. You said cows making cows is proof and then that you have proof but it is for yourself. You don't have proof, you were indoctrinated by your parents or family to believe in the bible just like 99% of religious people and you never tried to challenge those beliefs.

Perception through physical object doesnt mean perception of physical objects.

It's same with cpu and programs, even if execution of program is physics/electronics, the validity or correctness of the program is not seen physically.

Like all books, including scientific book.

All the proof are there, sad you are so indoctrinated into to your irrational pseudo scientific belief to even see a proof.

A lot of talk and still no proof. Just a silly book made by humans, sad.

YES

All perception that we know about, is perception at least THROUGH physical objects. The brain and nervous system are physical objects. And even thought that is entirely brain-contained is through the physical brain.

However, I as many others, believe that there is a non-physical aspect of the mind that science does not know about. I believe that we still think, even if there is no brain, and even if the energies that we understand do not exist.

This is something for science of the future to explain. But it may be something that is not explainable. So far, science has only been able to explain a few things of nature clearly... compared with what exists to be explained.

It's weird thing with the pseudo rationalist/scientific, they are expecting a result out of "science" without being able to explain how this result come out , but still saying it's due to "science" or something.

They often seem to be quite confused. .. Quit sign of conditioning, or belief being pushed over them rather than being coherently constructed by their own mind ..


Big bang, relativity, and all this looks very kabbalist, with  immaterial light, dynamic space, universe expanding from one point, many things remind kabbalist exegese of the genesis.

Just like chemistry, thermodynamics etc looks derivred from alchemy, a bit equivalent of kaballah in Islam.

It's not perception of physical objects though

Philo of alexandria make the connection with the mind of god as the logos, as source of truth.

Plato speak of realm of idea similar to this.

Many says the concept of haeven in the bible is the same than those concept of realm of idea of Plato,  and mind of god of philo.

Because I had a conclusion that people are based on four categories. Those who lie unknowigly, those admitting they don't know, those who lie, and those who had rejected the lies and tries to not make another. Truth is a process of throwing away the lies, not discovering something out of numbers. People lie. Its in your blood. You shoud always double check your fellow human. Thats why we have logic and brains.

I admitt I don't know where I don't know. You claim you know how universe was made. You believe scientists know. Scientist use highly sophisticated mathematical models. To know this evidence is to understand it. Are you a professor of mathematics? If no. You lie that you saw the evidence for big bang as it is only mathematical. You are a liar and nothing else. God had said that the liars will be against him. So you just evidenced for me I am on a right path.

Experimental physics is based on the fact that everything on micro scale and macro scale stays the same. Thats the proper science. There is no proof that is otherwise. If that would not be true all of the experimental science would be denied as not true.

The puritans had read their Bible. They knew people are not be trusted. But they wanted to know the truth. Thats how experimental science was made. And the God said it was good. lol. Alleluyah. And they were blessed with inventions and western civilisation.

There are some lockpicks from experimental science, that claims that some constant are constant without any single proof. I would like to remind thats not scientific method to have things unable to be verified, and build mathematical models based on a constant, that is found in one place only. To believe that requires a huge dose of leap of faith. I am fairly sure the atheists do not know how much in science we take for granted that is absolutely unverified, or simply lied.

In other words constants are their idol. And thats their faith. Why? Because people are liars, they will lie if allowed to.

There is absolutely no evidence in the proper science that macro scale level events cannot be imitated in the lab. So. If you say that big bang is evidenced outside of mathematics - that makes you a liar, again.

Noone is claiming to know, outside of kabbalists how the world was done. Big bang is a kabbalistic concept. In my opinion there is no difference between knowing how something is done and demonstrating it.

And thats the criterium of truth. Demonstration. Logic is the tool to show the lie.

You know how something is done? Show me.

P.S Why do you assume some books that claims to be holy are not? Christianity is a culture of scepticism not a blind faith. Muslims and Yews as well. We are all told that people are liars. Its the people that interpret it wrongly and make religions out of the Torah that are liars. God had made no religion. So you lie again. God had only give a message saying hello.

Jesus had that message in a nutshell. "Hello. Im the truth and a way. If you love me (the truth) you will keep my commandments.

See you later. "

The problem with religion is that it replace the God's word and his tradition with human traditions. And thats what people are laughing about. Nothing to laugh from God. Just from silly people that lie.

It does not say that lets say Sikh can not follow those commandments. I think some of them do. Why do say the truth was not shown to Sikh. They say to love one another. Thats almost right there. Do not discourage them.

Intellectual process is sensorial perception of what is guessed to be other sensorial perception.

All reality and facts happen in the mind, all reality based on sense is virtual

You can never really know if you are in a dream, in a simulation etc.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

The Soul is imagined first, then the particularity of objects,
External and internal, as one knows so one remembers.
As a rope, not perceived distinctly in dark, is erroneously imagined,
As snake, as a streak of water, so is the Soul (Atman) erroneously imagined.
As when the rope is distinctly perceived, and the erroneous imagination withdrawn,
Only the rope remains, without a second, so when distinctly perceived, the Atman.
When he as Pranas (living beings), as all the diverse objects appears to us,
Then it is all mere Maya, with which the Brahman (Supreme Soul) deceives himself.

— Gaudapada, Māṇḍukya Kārikā 2.16-19 [39]


It is the confusion, ignorance and illusions that need to be repealed. It is only when the knower sees nothing else but his Self that he can be fearless and permanent.[47][48] Vivekananda explains the need to understand Maya as follows (abridged),[49]

The Vedas cannot show you Brahman, you are That already. They can only help to take away the veil that hides truth from our eyes. The cessation of ignorance can only come when I know that God and I are one; in other words, identify yourself with Atman, not with human limitations. The idea that we are bound is only an illusion [Maya]. Freedom is inseparable from the nature of the Atman. This is ever pure, ever perfect, ever unchangeable.

— Adi Shankara's commentary on Fourth Vyasa Sutra, Swami Vivekananda

But mathematics and logic remain the same nonetheless

Descartes say a bit this too, that only thoughts are real , all sensorial perception is deceptive.

Science is more intellectual process than based on sensorial perception, facts etc.

Yeah, actually this stuff of life force is studied a bit on 19th science, through psychology etc, I think Freud somewhere talks about this sort of vital elan, that is also implied in darwin as "survival instinct" or so.

But the veda and budhism study this for very long time, as the prana, and integrate this as the center of science, instead of focusing on building machines for economic purpose as mean and end of science.

Andy pross also study this sort of question

http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof99.htm

But it's far to be really conclusive theory about this.

The primordial soup start to be more and more questioned today.

Some entities can be proven to exist and they have more knowledge or experience, it is via a transformation of one's being from finite to infinite that one can exit the matrix.

The origin of life indicates the existence of a life force. An outside variable is necessary to account for the scientific model of abiogenesis.

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
More information at the Origin of Life Prize website.