Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 147. (Read 845582 times)

I believe so no proof is needed.

When you are a God of true love and power like God is, you are the best thing that exists. When you are the best thing that exists, being love, you want to give other beings the ability to, also, experience and be the best. If while making them the best - making them like you are - they corrupt the "bestness" you have placed in them (they can do the corruption because they have the power of yourself you placed into them), what are your choices?

Because you have made them like yourself in their core being, you can't coerce them into doing anything. You are willpower, and so are they, because you made them that way. But the very fact that they have turned against "Godness," is their own self destruction. The best you can do is save the few who can be reached in a way where they voluntarily decide to step out of their self destruction.

The benefit to those others - the ones who are continuing onward with their self destruction - is to destroy them early. Why? Two reasons. One, they won't make their own destruction worse if they don't have a longer lifetime to do so, and two, they won't distract any of the saved ones back into self destruction if they are not around to do it.

You have been missing the point because there are not many God-religion teachers who understand... and because you are one of those who are of the self destruction theme. You have a chance to change, now. But you have to do it voluntarily. Nobody can force you, because God placed His willpower into the core of your being.

Change while you have time. And stop directing this thread towards religion all the time, when it is a science thread.

Religion is not the topic of this thread. Religious posts are made accidentally, because people are religious beings.

The science that shows that God exists is based on ONE simple thing. It is based on the fact that science does not really have a clue about how the universe started... that there is not one real shred of evidence in the universe that explains how the universe could come about and exist. (God of the gaps argument?)

So, where do we go to START investigating for a source? We include all the aspects of the universe. We include things like energy, laws of physics, chemical reactivity, energy and material cross reactivity, complexity, certainly cause and effect which is wide-spread through everything we understand, entropy to show that there was a beginning, life, spirits of people and animals, potentially the soul of man, the mind of man, and multitudes of other things.

Next, based on anything and everything that we see in the universe, we realize that whatever caused all the universe to exist, must have had the components in "mind" before the existence of the universe happened. Why mind? Because mind is part of what exists within the universe. So, it must have existed in a far greater form to be able to make mind available within the universe. (That's all conjecture, ''it must have'' You don't know any of that, you are just making it up.)

Anything able to plan and hold and carry out the making of the universe, matches intelligence combined with spirit combined with power combined with a whole lot of other great things. And, it matches our basic definitions of "God" in our dictionaries and encyclopedias. (Still conjecture.)

Big Bang does not include all these things in its theory. BB relies on all kinds of other theory to fill in the gaps within itself. The whole of BB theory - including the reliance on other theory - is a quagmire of unproven things that are constantly being contradicted as science finds out more and more. However, if Big Bang ever were the cause of the universe, then BB would be God. (Big bang theory relies on evidence like observing the universe and understanding that it's expanding http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/20932483) (You can't say that the creator of the universe has a mind and is intelligent and then say that the big bang is god if it created the universe because that would not match your definition of god.

If the bible was inspired by god you would expect no mistakes or possibility of anyone interpreting in any other way. There is no interpretation when it says that god commanded people to kill other people for whatever reason. It is not a bad interpretation all the contradictions there are in the bible. https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

If you are a god and the only thing you leave to humans to prove your existence is a simple book, wouldn't you make sure it has no errors?

Since many others have proven that the Bible does not have mistakes, perhaps it is YOU who are mistaken.

Youtube search on "Uri Harel." He was a recent Jewish rabbi who investigated the Old Testament Ancient Hebrew thoroughly. He found that there were only 12 "cosmetic unknowns" in the whole O.T.  These unknowns take absolutely nothing away from any theme of the O.T.  There are no mistakes in the Bible that are worse than cosmetic... "typos."

At the same time, the things of science that seem to contradict the Bible, do so because of the interpretations that scientists and others place on them. Science has to place these interpretations there, because there is no proof for any of these contradictions at all.

To say it another way... Bible religion is not religion; it is fact and truth. Science is the religion.

The problem is that people believe in specific gods from specific religions. I'm indeed open to the idea of a being or beings that may have created the universe, however if they exist, they are not the ones from religion.

No. Absolutely don't believe that these unicorns exist without proof. But also don't believe that they don't exist until you have proof that they don't. Rather, be open to the idea that they might exist, and stop thinking about it if it isn't important to you.

Same with God. You don't have proof that He exists. You don't have proof that He doesn't exist. You don't know either way. So, rather than trying to be an atheist (someone who tries to force himself to believe when he knows he doesn't know) against your own knowledge of the fact that you don't know, be honest. Be what you are... ignorant about this point... until you get proof one way or the other.

If you find yourself curious, however, examine the evidence with pure curiosity, rather than with preconceived notions.

It's invisible as well, that's why you didn't see it and it doesn't usually live here because it can teleport through space. In regards to bible mistakes:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-historical-errors-mistakes-in-bible-248627
https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

You would expect a book that's the only thing that ''proves'' god would have no mistakes, would be so perfectly written that people would not interpret it in different ways. There is also the problem with the description of God. All knowing all powerful yet he fails several times. He even had to kill almost everyone because of his failures, how does a god fail? How does a god get angry?

What mistakes in the bible? Creation? You have not proven that passage wrong.

Snake being a symbol? How have you proven it wrong?

Virginity of Mary is nowhere near there in the bible. That not even the need to be proven wrong - its not biblical

Have you answered what is life? So why do you think ressurection is impossible if you do not even know what you are talking about what life is? Do you mean that the life cease to exist with the beating of a heart? Do you know there is a substance that makes people into a very big coma where the beating of heart is so unable to be recognised that you would think that the person is dead while he is not.

How about cryogenics. Technicly dead frozen bodies being ressurected to life? How about Izraelis torturing Palestinians by chocking them and them ressurecting them? If you think that ice can presserve the life. Why do you think that GOD CAN NOT PRESSERVE it? If everything is in him? Why ice is better?

Give me break. Define life and death first.

I can prove that super unicorns with 3 horns does not exist on earth. We have satelites so one would have seen it. Unless they burrow deep down underground. But then, they would not look like a horse and would have no horns.

Its highly unlikely that a creature that looks like a horse could live anywhere else than on the surface of the earth, eating grass.

I also don't have proof that Super Unicorns with 3 horns that can teleport through space exist, does that mean I should believe they exist until someone proves they don't? I already proved how the god from the bible doesn't exist because they bible is filled with mistakes and nonsense.

Yes !

Need to see the reaction of characters in the context.

In this sometime it looks written like platonic dialog. More like story with meaning to be understood through the interaction of two characters rather than mere accurate recollection of historical facts.

Saying that god helped tesla is meaningless when you haven't even proved his existence.

I also don't have proof that Super Unicorns with 3 horns that can teleport through space exist, does that mean I should believe they exist until someone proves they don't? I already proved how the god from the bible doesn't exist because they bible is filled with mistakes and nonsense.