Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 211. (Read 845650 times)

legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
April 15, 2017, 07:48:38 PM
if there was truly a scientific proof that god exists, that would be all over the news and a known fact among everyone and the key word "faith" in religion would be lost.
I read somewhere that scientists still assume that a person could be created, as described in the bible. And this already shows that science can recognize that God exists.

source? it's easy to claim that some scientist said that... why not quran tho? why not any other holy book? why just the bible? there are siht ton of other religions that came way before christianity... that's why I don't pay any attention to news or scientist claims like that.

My god is the only true one. Burn infidel!!!
hero member
Activity: 1022
Merit: 564
Need some spare btc for a new PC
April 15, 2017, 07:47:00 PM
if there was truly a scientific proof that god exists, that would be all over the news and a known fact among everyone and the key word "faith" in religion would be lost.
I read somewhere that scientists still assume that a person could be created, as described in the bible. And this already shows that science can recognize that God exists.

source? it's easy to claim that some scientist said that... why not quran tho? why not any other holy book? why just the bible? there are siht ton of other religions that came way before christianity... that's why I don't pay any attention to news or scientist claims like that.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
April 15, 2017, 07:18:32 PM
Horace, you can see the OP on page 1 for 101 proofs, I am pointing out that many of the brightest minds in science recognized such proof

^^

#chemtrails
#flat earth
#reptile aliens
#101 proofs that god exist

 Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 15, 2017, 04:12:55 PM
Horace, you can see the OP on page 1 for 101 proofs, I am pointing out that many of the brightest minds in science recognized such proof and that there is a lot of evidence that suggesting the survival of the personality.
Jesus said "I and my Father are ONE", but this statement has been interpreted incorrectly. Actually Jesus never said that he was GOD but he did say "I am not your master" (read Saying 13 in Gospel of Thomas, a book which THEY left out of the Bible) and at his trial when asked if he was GOD he said "THEY say as much".
newbie
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
April 15, 2017, 01:29:13 PM
if there was truly a scientific proof that god exists, that would be all over the news and a known fact among everyone and the key word "faith" in religion would be lost.
I read somewhere that scientists still assume that a person could be created, as described in the bible. And this already shows that science can recognize that God exists.
member
Activity: 139
Merit: 20
April 15, 2017, 11:31:32 AM
if there was truly a scientific proof that god exists, that would be all over the news and a known fact among everyone and the key word "faith" in religion would be lost.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
https://primedice.com/?c=WINFREEBTC
April 15, 2017, 08:35:29 AM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
By observation of phenomena you can infer the existence of a thing or being without further confirmation. The content-source problem is a very important concept in evaluating such evidence.
Knowledge only requires a source that is trusted, it does not require firsthand verification. For example, Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, claims that he has received definitive firsthand proof of after-death communications from dead relatives. Other famous skeptics like Anthony Flew became convinced of a creator by the evidence of biology and physics.
What evidence of biology and physics? Until now, what I've seen and heard from religious people that try to use science as a helping tool for their cult is this: they take laws, theories, facts from science and they say that those could not happen without a God. Basically, they are not proving anything and they are also asking for arguments from people who contradict them.
I have posted the link called "eminent researchers" many times to this thread, please follow up on the opinions of all of these scholars, including famous (former) atheist Anthony Flew.
Quote
Below is a list of Nobel prize winning scientists and others among the greatest minds in the world who believed in some type of paranormal phenomenon. They held these beliefs not out of religious faith but because of their own research, the research of others, or their own experiences. Their beliefs, and in many cases, the reasons for their beliefs, are provided and links are included for additional information.

Some atheists and pseudoskeptics will say that science has removed the need for God as an explanation for the existence of the natural world. The quotes here demonstrate that many of the greatest scientific minds believe just the opposite, that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.
Some of the Nobel prize winners in the list include: Max Planck the founder of quantum mechanics who believed that matter is derived from consciousness and therefore the mind cannot be produced by the brain. Erwin Schrödinger also held this belief. Wolfgang Pauli believed he had psychokinetic powers that he could not control. Otto Stern banned Pauli from entering his lab to prevent Pauli's powers from damaging his experimental apparatus. Pierre Curie and Marie Curie are also included in the list. Marie Curie was the first woman awarded a Nobel prize and was the first person awarded two Nobel prizes. Arno Penzias believed his research in astronomy showed the the universe was the result of a supernatural plan. Charles Townes believed the fact that science could not explain the origin of the universe implied the existence of God. Albert Einstein believed that natural laws were designed by an intelligence. Charles Darwin (not a Nobel prize winner) also held this belief. Many other great minds although not Nobel prize winners are also on the list including: Kurt Gödel who believed that a human is non-physical spirit connected to a physical body. Alan Turing believed in ESP. Karl Popper believed in dualism the philosophy that the mind is non-material. Robert Boyle the father of modern chemistry and founder of the Royal Society of London believed in spiritual healing based on his own investigations into the phenomenon.

Information on more Nobel prize winning scientists and other great minds can be found below...

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

Quote
But let's give it a try with Jesus. If Jesus is God, why did he not prove he was God?

That is not his teaching, Jesus said "they say as much", that idea comes from Paul like I mentioned.
What the fuck are you talking about? I asked you what evidence of biology and physics and you enumerated a list of famous scientists that also believed in a deity. That is not evidence. But what you did next just doesn't make sense. I asked you a simple, plain question. If Jesus is God, why did he not prove he is God? Instead of answering my question, you answered...I don;t really know what you answered, it just makes no sense. Can you please answer my question like a normal human being?
sr. member
Activity: 265
Merit: 250
April 15, 2017, 07:55:23 AM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j002/

Genesis 22:12, God speaking to Abraham:
Quote
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Notice the immediate reason why God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? It was a test of Abraham's faith.

God knows everything. Yet there is an aspect of a person's faith that He has hidden from Himself. Part of the reason He has done this is for the joy that He gets when people like Abraham make it through the test with flying colors.

Cool
In general, the Bible was written by people and many inaccurate facts can be changed. So there is something to think about.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 15, 2017, 05:33:23 AM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
By observation of phenomena you can infer the existence of a thing or being without further confirmation. The content-source problem is a very important concept in evaluating such evidence.
Knowledge only requires a source that is trusted, it does not require firsthand verification. For example, Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, claims that he has received definitive firsthand proof of after-death communications from dead relatives. Other famous skeptics like Anthony Flew became convinced of a creator by the evidence of biology and physics.
What evidence of biology and physics? Until now, what I've seen and heard from religious people that try to use science as a helping tool for their cult is this: they take laws, theories, facts from science and they say that those could not happen without a God. Basically, they are not proving anything and they are also asking for arguments from people who contradict them.
I have posted the link called "eminent researchers" many times to this thread, please follow up on the opinions of all of these scholars, including famous (former) atheist Anthony Flew.
Quote
Below is a list of Nobel prize winning scientists and others among the greatest minds in the world who believed in some type of paranormal phenomenon. They held these beliefs not out of religious faith but because of their own research, the research of others, or their own experiences. Their beliefs, and in many cases, the reasons for their beliefs, are provided and links are included for additional information.

Some atheists and pseudoskeptics will say that science has removed the need for God as an explanation for the existence of the natural world. The quotes here demonstrate that many of the greatest scientific minds believe just the opposite, that the scientific evidence is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.
Some of the Nobel prize winners in the list include: Max Planck the founder of quantum mechanics who believed that matter is derived from consciousness and therefore the mind cannot be produced by the brain. Erwin Schrödinger also held this belief. Wolfgang Pauli believed he had psychokinetic powers that he could not control. Otto Stern banned Pauli from entering his lab to prevent Pauli's powers from damaging his experimental apparatus. Pierre Curie and Marie Curie are also included in the list. Marie Curie was the first woman awarded a Nobel prize and was the first person awarded two Nobel prizes. Arno Penzias believed his research in astronomy showed the the universe was the result of a supernatural plan. Charles Townes believed the fact that science could not explain the origin of the universe implied the existence of God. Albert Einstein believed that natural laws were designed by an intelligence. Charles Darwin (not a Nobel prize winner) also held this belief. Many other great minds although not Nobel prize winners are also on the list including: Kurt Gödel who believed that a human is non-physical spirit connected to a physical body. Alan Turing believed in ESP. Karl Popper believed in dualism the philosophy that the mind is non-material. Robert Boyle the father of modern chemistry and founder of the Royal Society of London believed in spiritual healing based on his own investigations into the phenomenon.

Information on more Nobel prize winning scientists and other great minds can be found below...

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

Quote
But let's give it a try with Jesus. If Jesus is God, why did he not prove he was God?

That is not his teaching, Jesus said "they say as much", that idea comes from Paul like I mentioned.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 103
https://primedice.com/?c=WINFREEBTC
April 15, 2017, 03:07:38 AM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
By observation of phenomena you can infer the existence of a thing or being without further confirmation. The content-source problem is a very important concept in evaluating such evidence.
Knowledge only requires a source that is trusted, it does not require firsthand verification. For example, Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, claims that he has received definitive firsthand proof of after-death communications from dead relatives. Other famous skeptics like Anthony Flew became convinced of a creator by the evidence of biology and physics.
What evidence of biology and physics? Until now, what I've seen and heard from religious people that try to use science as a helping tool for their cult is this: they take laws, theories, facts from science and they say that those could not happen without a God. Basically, they are not proving anything and they are also asking for arguments from people who contradict them. Take a look at Badecker, who came up with a bunch of copy paste links in which he does exactly what I told you about. But let's do something else, let's go to the roots of Christianity. By the way, that example with Abraham's child is nothing compared to God sending two bears to kill 40 kids for laughing at a bald man or God randomly wrestling a guy, cheating and still losing. But let's give it a try with Jesus. If Jesus is God, why did he not prove he was God?

P.S. Badecker, passive-agressive comments won't prove anything, you are still a dirty, shameless, worthles cultist. I advise everyone to ignore Badecker since he is delusional.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 09:51:38 PM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
By observation of phenomena you can infer the existence of a thing or being without further confirmation. The content-source problem is a very important concept in evaluating such evidence.
Knowledge only requires a source that is trusted, it does not require firsthand verification. For example, Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, claims that he has received definitive firsthand proof of after-death communications from dead relatives. Other famous skeptics like Anthony Flew became convinced of a creator by the evidence of biology and physics.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 09:36:56 PM
GOD simply will not terrorize a child and there are many more examples of problems in the Bible on the evilbible website. Zuesse even finds a connection between Paul and the early writings of Hitler. I hope you admit that raising a knife to kill an innocent child is totally immoral and shocking; just imagine being in that position of terror and betrayal, total absence of love! How could this be the test of our love for GOD? Pardon my language but this story sounds totally Satanic to me, a ritual where the key emotional element is fear, and a violent form of mental shock (abuse) is inflicted upon a child. If this story happened today we would call it religious ritual abuse (probably Satanic). The groundbreaking research of Zuesse points out huge problems with the NT, there has obviously been a huge cover-up of the true teachings of Jesus.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 14, 2017, 08:48:52 PM
I hope that nobody thinks that terrorizing a child would be worth it!

I agree. We should explain to our kids, at an early age, that death at any time from many causes is possible... so that they are prepared.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 08:44:50 PM
I hope that nobody thinks that terrorizing a child would be worth it!
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 14, 2017, 07:33:59 PM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j002/

Genesis 22:12, God speaking to Abraham:
Quote
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Notice the immediate reason why God told Abraham to sacrifice his son? It was a test of Abraham's faith.

God knows everything. Yet there is an aspect of a person's faith that He has hidden from Himself. Part of the reason He has done this is for the joy that He gets when people like Abraham make it through the test with flying colors.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 05:18:53 PM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
By observation of phenomena you can infer the existence of a thing or being without further confirmation. The content-source problem is a very important concept in evaluating such evidence.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 05:09:54 PM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.

As your God to post here so that we can discuss this with him (or her).
Why would the messengers of GOD be here? Not much of an audience here at all! What about the content published in both the Phoenix Journals and the CONTACT newspaper?? I do not wish to make or be part of some kind of a “cult of Doris Ekker” but the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.  There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books.
newbie
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
April 11, 2017, 02:29:35 AM
Is there any proof that God exists? Whenever this question comes up, I am always reminded of Thomas in the Bible who would not believe that Jesus was alive until he could touch Him. That is the same analogy many people use today when it comes to answering the question “Is there any proof that God exists?” They want physical proof for something that must be taken on faith value.

It takes greater faith to believe that an unseen God exists than it does to just dismiss Him because you cannot physically confirm that He is there. For those who deal in evidence there is proof all around you and inside of you that God does exist.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
April 14, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
An open mind is not suitable if it leads you to assume honesty in all of the texts. Instead, realize that these texts were written by men and many of them. For example one story in the OT has GOD commanding Abraham to kill Isaac, but how could anyone make sense of GOD commanding the torture of a child? Strangely, this story is used to suggest an analogy to the alleged sacrifice of Jesus, but I believe there is no reason to think that Jesus did not resist his capture! In any case I am not going to follow the fake apostle Paul because his teaching is not the one that Jesus gave. In my opinion, the explanation of these events in Phoenix Journal #2 seems far more plausible than any account of blood sacrifice demanded by GOD.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j002/
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
April 14, 2017, 06:26:10 AM
BADecker, why are you in denial about the true origin of Christianity? These scholars are convinced that Christianity originated with Paul, not Jesus!

"An open-minded reader/juror will come to the conclusion that [Paul] is guilty of inventing a new religion, illegitimately appropriating Jesus."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Q1H4EG#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1492158700082

When you compare Old Testament Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the hand-written copies of Isaiah made two thousand years (and more) later, you will find that the differences are few and unimportant. The important points about this have to do with the fastidiousness of the Hebrew people, and the guidance of God.

Although the Jewish (Hebrew) leaders of Jesus time rejected Jesus for the nation of Israel, many of them became followers of Christianity. It is their exacting care that we see in the writings of the New Testament, that has kept the N.T. alive from the time of Jesus Christ. God, Himself, directed this to happen, just as He direct the maintaining of the O.T. as seen in Isaiah.

Many Bible scholars understand this. An open-minded scholar will keep this in mind when he is studying factual and truthful the New Testament is.

Cool
Jump to: