Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 201. (Read 845809 times)

Bruh, if you think arguing with him isn't worth it, then you should've just ignored his statements in the first place...
This topic has already been talked about so many times that it has become common. There has been billions of debates about this matter also.. and clearly it is never ending. Not until the end itself comes and we can all see for ourselves what really is there beyond life. So for now, let us just agree to disagree to all that is opposing our beliefs.. coz doing otherwise wont do both sides any good.. it just clearly creates more hate and that's just the last thing that this world needs right now.. so let us be a good example and a model as a christian and end this debate that is endless and not worth the debate.. not worth the hate.
just sayin..

You see brother, it is our nature to be skeptic. Yes, but it is also our nature to want something to believe in.. my point is, if my beliefs wont do me any harm, and can guide me all throughout my life to become a good person in any community, I dont see why I should stop believing.. this is the only gamble in life that can only result to a win win situation, coz if true, then I have passed his tests and became worthy of his promises, and if not, then at least I know that I lived a life being a blessing to others or good than another burden in this world.. so that is really why I believe.
I have been in so much religions except the muslim because I was curious, had been an atheist once but then again I realized this and came back to his arms..

But really, i dont want you to get wrong impression of me forcing you into my beliefs..
I mean i have lots of friends that are atheists and we get along pretty well despite all our differences regarding our beliefs.. just wanted to clarify that.

Peace bruh. ✌🏻✌🏻

What? Try to argue with someone who thinks that, "The electric toothbrush is anywhere to be seen in the universe. It's what God made first. The electric toothbrush. Or the dildo, people saw that too in the wonderful machines of the universe?" Barely even worth looking at.

Hi horace, if you cannot explain how your hypothesis might actually work, then it is pure illusion! The mind is transcendent, over 100 points of evidence are in my recent posts. You claimed something, now you should prove it by refuting my counterexamples:

So you know the why but not the how?! You probably think that you have no burden of proof in this discussion, after all you already know for sure that the mind is purely physical so it is easy to reject all evidence of the survival hypothesis, but actually survival has NOT been ruled out, you just do not want to go to the mat on the evidence I posted. You promote philosophical materialism, but this is not an updated theory of mind, it is not capable of addressing the evidence and that is why physicalism was rejected by these eminent researchers:

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

Some key points of evidence out of 100+ presented;

The transcendent nature of minds in NDEs corresponds with physics:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a23
Skeptical arguments against NDEs are not valid:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a35

We can not explain how emotions are created in our brains, not for the moment, but we do know why they happen and what are the chemical reactions. Also, the creator of a computer is not inside the computer, but it does obey the same rules since they are both part of the same dimension of space and time. But let us stick to your whole statement, which I understand. Do you agree that such a concept can not be scientificaly proven since it is claimed to not obey our scientific rules? In the same time, this becomes a matter of faith, you can't know for sure it is like this, but you chose to have faith and stick with this. I, for one, have absolutely no problem with this. If that is what you believe, so be it, I have no interest in changing your belief. If that is what guides you through life, I've no right to come and say 'you shouldn't think like this'. But I am interested in your opinion regarding the scientific proof of the existence of God that Badecker tries to shove down everyone's throats.

You see my friends, there is a big difference between our mindsets. Its our way of thinking that's way too different. Because obviously, my GOD is different from the GOD that you know for sure.
Why you may ask??
Because you are all thinking that the GOD I am worshipping is limited by science.
So let me get this strait, "that is not the kind of GOD that I am worshipping."
Because my GOD, the GOD in the Bible, is not affected by time, space or matter. If he's affected by time, space or matter, he's not GOD. Time, space and matter is what we call a continuum. All of them has to come into existence at the same instant because if because if there were matter but no space, WHERE would you put it? If there were matter and space but no time, WHEN would you put it? You cannot have time, space or matter independently. They have to come into existence simultaneously. The bible answers that in 10 words : in the beginning(time was made), GOD created the heaven(space was made), and then earth(them the matter). So now you have time, space and matter created. A trinity of trinities there, coz you know time is past, present and future, while space has length width and height, and matter has solid, liquid and gas. You have trinities of trinities there created simultaneously, so the GOD who created them has to be outside of them(obviously). If he is limited by time(science), he is not GOD. The guy who created your computers or gadgets is not inside those things that you're using right now. He's not in there walking around changing numbers or obeying every command you give. Makes sense? The GOD who created this universe is outside of the universe. He's above it, around it, beyond it, in it, or through it. He is unaffected by it. So for the most common statement that says that the concept of the spiritual force cannot have any effect on a material body, I absolutely know this is false, coz if not, well then my friend, I guess you'd have to explain to me things like emotions : love, hatred, envy, jealousy, happiness, sadness and rationality. I mean if our brains are just random collections of chemicals that were formed by chance billions of years ago, then how on earth can you trust your own reasoning process in the thoughts that you think??

 So you see, your mindset or way of thinking that asks where did GOD came from if he really existed, is assuming a limited GOD, and that's your problem, because the GOD that I worship is not limited by time, space, matter or whatever scientific things you might connect him to. Just try to think of it, If I could fit this infinite GOD that I am worshipping in my more or less 3 pound brain, he would not be worth worshipping and that's for sure don't you think? So okay, that's the GOD I am worshipping. I hope this clear things up for you guys.

What happened, you ran out of arguments and you decide to play it cool? You wanted rebuttal and suddenly, when you have it, you decide to quit the discusion? As I said, you're exactly that kid that loses in a verbal dispute and starts laughing histerically at the other one hoping others will take his part.  Prove that what I have said makes no sense and it is not true. Then and only then I shall allow you to laugh it off without any kind of problem. Can you prove it?

You are ever so funny   Since you show by your words that most of what you know is deception that doesn't make sense, time to laugh you right off. 

First of all, I can't believe I am actually doing this with a cunt like you, but it's all for the better of humanity. Consider me your Jesus Christ, fucker.

1. The electric toothbrush is anywhere to be seen in the universe. It's what God made first. The electric toothbrush. Or the dildo, people saw that too in the wonderful machines of the universe. Pathetic.
2.This refers to the assumption that you made, stop acting like a dumb bitch and take what you get for granted. You ate shit, nobody cares if you admit it or not. First two points are no even remotely scientifically, it is just your fecal matter transposed into thoughts.
3.Again, you are going all around. You are either a dumb cunt or a really hypocrite cunt. It is not what you have said. What you said is that TRUE (not pure, you common idiot) randomness does not exist because all is based on cause and effect. What actual science sais is that randomness defines as the lack of a pattern, of a high probability, not of a cause. Randomness does not exclude cause and effect, nor viceversa, you cheap idiot. Talking about patterns, here's what you did and keep doing: go around the subject, find some things that in your head seem to be flaws, try to exploit them to win your argument. As an example, you just ignored the truthfull fact that you must prove that there was a God as the first cause of the universe, and more precisely, your God, not fucking Osiris or The Spaghetti Monster (which, by the way, is the best example of how dumb are people to believe in anything). I state again, you cretine, we know everything has a cause and every cause will have an effect, we just don't know what was the cause. You don't know as well so stop acting like you do, you cunt. (that is why you shitheads are called apologists, because you find an excuse for your lack of knowledge by saying 'it must have been god') So other than cause and effect, which we already know of, you haven't proven anything.
4. Not believing is not a religion. It is not because having a religion means believing in something. Knowing something for sure and admitting there is stuff you do not know is just being normal, cunt. So keep the religious shit for yourself.
5. Beautiful story cultist, but that is just a childish thing. We were small, playing with wooden swords and we all had some superpower. And from time to time, there was an asshole who, when defeated, would say 'You can't do that because I have the power to take all your powers and you can't kill me'. Of course, we would just send him home but this is what you just did. Stick with cause and effect until that argument that you overuse turns against you. That's when you say 'whell yeah, but God is God and cause and effect does not apply to him'. You can't know that, you wouldn't know God, not even if he existed.  But you can say that because it's all imaginary, you can attribute unknown and mysterious powers to your imaginary superhero because he doesn't exist. That is your mind coming up with shitty excuses to maintain your defense system alive. You are basically a shit person, a faux, a fraud, a lie to yourself. An apologist cunt that pretends to scientifically prove something while he barely remembers to breathe properly. Of course this becomes personal, you shithead, since everything you wrote there comes from your rich imagination. You pretend to prove someting, and actually you are just writing your own desilusions there, your interpretations of the world as you see it. That is not observing, that is being a nut. Nothing to rebut, as I've said until now, absolutely nothing except some terms and some definition errors.
6. Scientists base everything on direct observation and experimentation.  You are just insulting them. You should be ashamed of yourself, cunt. But you have no shame, do you.
 Finally, keep in mind that I am very calm and have a really big smile on my face as I write all of these truths about you. I've told you, but I shall repeat myself: I am not insulting you, I am solely reflecting what you are as a person. Cunt, apologist, dumbass, cheap idiot, bitch, retard, ass licking cultist...these are not insults for someone who is all of these. So for you, they are attributes. Now, may you please get out of here? You have lost. Admit it, retreat, come up with new ideas and we can start again.

Science might not be able to prove the description of God the way religions state that God is. But science proves that something exists, that fits some of the points about God:
1. Essentially all powerful;
2. Essentially knowing everything;
3. Having an identity, a "self-ness;"
4. Outside of the universe as well as within it;
5. More than likely very loving.

There are others besides these. But these are some of the simpler-to-see ones.

The difference in scientifically proving the existence of God is this. Everything else that is proven by science is something that exists completely within the universe, and operates by scientific laws. God is the only thing that we know of that exists outside of the universe (at least in part), and has to be proven to exist by how He/It fills the voids that the universe shows us... voids pertaining to where things come from. We have no other explanation that shows where things come from.

If one says that Big Bang shows where things come from, they are wrong. Big Bang has absolutely no part of it expressing things like spirit, soul, or simple emotion and personal identity. God as an explanation has them all.

Science cannot prove the existence of God . To believe or not to believe is a mental function.

Oh, wow. I almost can't believe it. You are actually being drawn into stating something useful, sort of.

LOL! Then why is it that every last machine that people have and use comes from examples shown in the universe... examples that have been around for thousands of years into the past, long before anybody looked to see what they are.


You say "this." What "this" are you talking about. Science scientifically proves that God exists. This throws out the idea of believing it. You can't believe what you know. Rather, you believe what God says - his predictions and explanations - not that He exists.


LOL! Just as I have said. Pure random has never been witnessed anywhere. All that has been witnessed - and in overwhelming abundance - is cause and effect. Just because cause and effect are often not observable by people because of their lack of any real abiblity, doesn't mean that there is any randomness. Stop blabbing, and get down to something that makes sense.


You poor baby. You can't take it, can you, when someone proves your religion is foolish


You talk so silly. When a builder builds a shed, is he part of it? Do the laws of the shed hold true in the builder? Is the builder made out of wood and nails like the shed? Does he have shingles on his head like the shed has shingles on its roof? In the same way, the physics of the universe is not necessarily something that applies to God, even in the least.


Wow! You just described scientists. The only two differences are, they don't say the word "God," and they don't have the facts like God does.



Thanks for the non-rebuttal. Most of what you say is simply talk against me personally. You poor baby. It kinda tickles watching the rabies spittle dribbling out of your mouth. Be careful, now. You just might bite yourself in the forehead. However, if you really want to, I'll tell you how you can do it. Stand on a chair, so you can reach way up there. LOL! 

Actually, the Old Testament is not a Paul thing at all. You can find the nation of Israel, today, that upholds the Torah and the Tanakh, the O.T., completely separate from anything that Paul wrote.

When you check out the New Testament, you will find that it upholds the O.T.  This shows that even if Paul manipulated some of the N.T. to His liking, he did it at God's direction. However, the Council of Nicea was the place where the false teachings were scrapped, refining the N.T. into something that is pure.

I strongly believe those disputes were between different religions, and yes it is still happening today, between different religions. I failed to see any atheist lately go and detonate himself over some religious people that disagreed with him. As for offending, there is nothing more offensive than a primitive religion that still exists and rules over. I donlt go on the street and offend religious people, I have no interest in that. What I do try to offend and make unconfortobale are fake fuckers like Badecker who only do religious propaganda and try to stick to the scientific side, claiming science is in their favour. I do offend these fuckers and their faith because their way of thinking we are stupid enogh to be fooled by them is insulting.

Trying to get smart with me and all you do is say 'You did not rebut my proof'. Here you go, you apologist cunt, hopefully you vanish the fuck outta here after this.

1.Machine-like nature of the universe - obviously, you know nothing of the universe. If you would, you would know that there is a lot we don't know about it in order to call it machine-like. But hey, you're used to finding excuses for something you don't know about. Nothing proofs anything here except you talk about shit that you don't know.
2. This is solely an assumption based on the fact that you believe that the universe has a creator (and you specifically know who, that is the flaw with you retards).
3. Quantum mathematics? Really? You call your shit scientifically based on the fact that you use fancy words? Randomness is not and was never what you defined it to be. Randomness means the lack of predictability, of a pattern, not the lack of the cause. I strongly believe you are a cunt more than a retard and you intentionally wrongly defined randomness in order to prove your bullshit. The remaining bullshit in your proof at this point is again an assumption, not proof. You assume that everything has a cause, so the universe must have God as a cause. Let us quickly cut the crap: we know there must be a cause to the big bang. We don't know what was that cause. Neither you. The only difference between you and people like me is that we try to find out through research. Apologists like you take the short way to the nobrain area and say 'It's God'. That's what you need to prove, that the one responsible for the universe is a God or the God. Until now, all you do is prove that there must be a cause to the universe. We already knew that, dipshit.
4. The nations look for God - here comes the propaganda. You really call this scientific proof? Have you ever read a scientific work, you mustering retard? Let's see some probability now. What is more probable:
a. A super intelligent and powerfull being created the universe and humans. Based on the logic of Badecker, something must have created the God. If he is so intelligent, how could he know something far more intelligent did not create him? If this is so, why are we losing time with this mediocre intelligent loser, let's hunt for the big one. Also, how far will this go, to the infinite?
b. Humans, who tend to use their imagination, fantasising about how powerfull they could be if they got smarter, invented a God as a protector, in the fear of predators. Later on, that became a religion and as man became more and more intelligent, religion became a way of controling other people hence the ones who invented and control it fantasize about having that power and act as if they would. Other examples of Godlike stories created by humans: nearly every superhero, fantasy movies, fantasy games, santa claus, local legends. For me, the this is far more probable. In fact, I attribute the God thing a percentage of 0.001% of probability.

Finally, I reach to my conclusion that I've said before without needing to write all of this for an apologist cunt to drop the 'you didn't prove I'm wrong' bullshit. The conclusion is all of that is pure assumption and intentionally error. Absolutely no proof anywhere that God is the cause of universe. All that you prove is that the Universe must have a cause, and we already know that, because it has been already proven. Your job is to prove that the cause is specifically your God. Good luck with that. Thank you a lot for wasting my time with your apologistic crap that does follow a pattern. Now fuck off outta here, you brainless cultist.

More researchers confirm that Paul (who never met Jesus) invented the new religion of Christianity. Paul's teaching of justification was also invented, it did not come from Jesus.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/122502/our-abraham-not-theirs

So why should we choose the narrative of Paul? The mainstream churches would like you to believe Paul's teaching exclusively, they ask you to believe that the "Bible" is "inerrant" in order to keep you ignorant of other narratives like PJ #2. The mainstream cults do not want any investigation of GOD'S WORD outside of Paul's word.

I look good in the eyes of readers for two reasons. The first is the scientific proof that God exists. Science has proven God, not me:
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.

The second reason is that you and jokers like you deny the proof without being able to rebut it. So, you are upholding me for showing the proof, and the proof because it is proof. I don't have any need to uphold myself. You are doing it for me. Thank you 


Whether or not I am an idiot, nobody rebuts the proof that God exists. Since this is so, whether I am an idiot or not, you are an ignoramus for suggesting that God doesn't exist in the face of the proof you can't seem to rebut.


Scientific proof IS listening to what others say. And it is even stronger since you and the others haven't been able to rebut the proof. Thanks for helping to uphold the proof that God exists. 


Did you know tthat you are a pretty good typist? Too bad you are all mixed up about the things that you type. You are doing much of what you suggest I am doing, while I am not doing it.

You haven't shown any proof that God doesn't exist. You haven't even rebutted the proof that He does exist. You are such a good typist.



You poor baby. Sounds like Mommy dropped you when you were little, and on your head, at that. One question. Are you headed for the funny farm? or are you there already?

 

You did not think that it was because of disputes on the topic of religion, many people have always killed each other? And now we are raising this issue more and more often, and at the same time many are trying to offend the opponent and his faith.

You are still solely trying to look good in the eyes of the readers instead of proving anything, hence the different methods of being aggressive or passive. When everyone tells you that you're an idiot, you have no choice but to check that shit out. You can, of course, say 'No I'm not', but that will not make you less of an idiot. If you were to be serious in your attempt to prove god, you would at least try and listen to what everyone else has to say. But you are not trying to do any scientific research, you're just a cheap ass licking apologist that tries to shove his God shit story up the throat of decent people that do not give a single plain fuck about a cult of beggars that believe in some miraculous unexplained creature based on the witness of some drunk fishermen. That is why you deserve to be called an apologist cunt, a child molesting cult supporter, a braindead primitive piece of crap, because you insult the intelligence of decent human beings with your nasty, disgusting methods of doing religious propaganda. Again, I tell you, fuck off outta here, apologist. You belong in a cave, not in modern society.

Neither the Sun, nor Sirius are binary stars. Sirius is a binary star system because it has two stars that orbit each other, Sirius A and Sirius B. The Sun is a yellow dwarf. As for the rest, it makes no sense or maybe you talk a different language. Also, no, I would not believe Sirius was a binary star system solely based on the Dogon tribe of Mali sayings. That's why I can;t believe in the existence of a God only because the same beings that invented santa claus say there is one.