Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 173. (Read 845809 times)

NONE WHATSOFUCKINGEVER !     

Sci-fi. When you look the whole thing over, and compare the writings, it is all based on non-facts. The links you provide show it right within themselves. And you can find rebuttals to the things in the links, by simply reading the things that are said there, and finding the circular references.

Nobody is force to accept proof for much of anything. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Check out the proof for the fact that God exists:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

As I said, 353 pages and still no one has been able to provide any scientific evidence for the existence of God. Hopefully people will realize that god doesn't exist and religion is poison. The only thing that works is science.

Now you tell us that you have a religion of bad faith.

The reason it fits this topic is to show folks that most (if not all) of what you say is designed to downplay the fact that God exists, while you, yourself, know that He does exist. Knowing such will strengthen the understanding that people have, that the things you say can't be trusted.

Right on topic.

Why are you bringing religion into this? This is scientific proof for god and yet no one has presented any good scientific proof to prove god.

And that ^^^ entirely proves your lack of good faith in this topic.

So a wisp of stardust is god. Horace, you definitely have a new episode here

Cause and effect is so extremely overwhelming in everything that we see, that science has made it a scientific law and principle... one of the basic laws and principles.

The thing that would be opposite of cause and effect, would be pure random. Study pure random to see that there is no example of it anywhere, and that such a thing is impossible in an ordered universe such as ours.

We are so extremely limited in our understanding about much of anything, that it is very difficult to see what God is made up of. If it takes thousands of angels to "build" the universe, then thousands of angels, combined, are God. If it takes a wisp of stardust to make the universe, then that stardust is God. If the holes in big bang theory were ever filled, then BB might be shown to be God.

Not that I want to get into religion here, but the Bible talks about the Holy Trinity (without using the word Trinity). God is made up of 3 Persons in one God. The Revelation talks about the Seven Spirits of God (Sevenfold spirit of God).

The thing I am talking about is God, not what He is made out of.

Sure, your argument is based on cause and effect that you keep mentioning every single thread. Even if everything has a cause (which we dont know) your argument fails to prove what the first cause is since it provides no evidence for it. You say it's god but it could very easily be something else or gods or multiple causes or the universe may not even have a cause or maybe a multi verse exists.

It's only your misunderstanding and fad faith that suggests that the proof for God has been debunked.

Get write in here. Write the debunking out yourself. If you don't, you are showing you don't have any.

Debunked by yourself: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19455088

And debunked by me: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19350390
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19357376

Also: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19355289

And this new one that you ignored, of course

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19666684

Not a reference at all, since God has been scientifically proven to exist:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.

Here is something interesting. It is also possible what most think is God, was actually ancient aliens. Look up the wiki article on Ancient Astronaut theory and how certain events in the bible could've been weapons of mass destruction from aliens.

''We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.''
Circular reference

When you start with absolutely no premeditated thoughts about what God is like, but simply take a look at the universe from a scientific standpoint, the big blank "thing" that brought the whole universe into existence fits the basic definitions of God in the dictionaries and encyclopedias.

If big bang theory could take into account the complexity of intelligence in the way that the universe shows complexity to exist, big bang might be able to be considered to be God. There are too many holes in BB theory to match what exists in ways other than the "simple" theoretical math that suggests BB might exist.

Now you are bringing religion into it. The FSM isn't shown by science proof at all. Probability the scientific proof that God exists leaves open the idea that God might be the FSM. That is the failure of scientists in their observations, so far.

We are so far from scientific knowledge about what God is like that, revelation from God is the only thing that we have that can show what God is really like.

You can't know that. You can say the same about the flying spaghetti monster instead of God and boom there you have it, now the flying spaghetti monster is the creator and you will never be able to prove it or disprove it because he lives outside time and space and its not physical.

You can't "prove" scientifically that God exists because that would require him to be physical, visible. He is outside of his creation, although he can and has entered into it.

If you don't know what god is you can't say it's a requirement.

Critics of the Modal Cosmological Argument or Argument from Contingency would question whether the universe is in fact contingent. We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example.

Critics also ask why God should be considered a “requirement” and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence?” therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves.

If God is thought not to have, or not to need, a cause of his existence, then his existence would be a counter-example to the initial premise that everything that exists has a cause of its existence! If God or the Prime Mover “just is”, then why can the universe not “just be”? Why is there a need to go a step further back? The widely accepted concept of “Occam’s Razor” suggests that the simplest solution to a problem is always the best, and that additional unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

Even if one accepts that that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Big Bang theory suggests), the Temporal Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods).

Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshipped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition.

The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe.

Interestingly, at the sub-atomic quantum level, modern science has found that physical events are observed to have no evident cause, and particles appear to pop in and out of existence at random. In the first infinitesimal fraction of a second after the Big Bang singularity, classical physics is known to break down and just such unpredictable and counter-intuitive quantum effects are thought to apply.