Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 256. (Read 845809 times)

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  
BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny.

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  

The LAWS as set forth by GOD have always been present; Man has constantly re-written the Laws to suit his own desires.

And what about your own moral character with regards to recognizing the truth about the evidence for life after death?

To disdainfully dismiss any immaterial phenomenon, as skeptics do, actually betrays the scientific method.

Skeptics defend the necessity to keep science and religion in their own proper place. Why not try to see if the schism can be repaired?

The LAWS of GOD and Creation are logical in that they were set forth to maintain BALANCE within the Creation; you can find the details in Phoenix Journal #27. The details about Jesus are in Phoenix Journal #2 and in the Pleiades Connection volumes. Modern science explains a lot and keeps explaining more. But outside the fence one still perceives a host of inexplicable mysteries. The Phoenix Journals were written to give this planet the truth "from the horse's mouth"; with truth, you can become aware of the Father's will within you, then you can live in wisdom of knowledge, serve the will of God within, and resist the adversary. It's not like you have something to lose by learning the truth about your eternal soul and the Laws of God.

Print the pages of the Journals as paper emits considerably less EMF pollution than your computer!


You don't need books to show you the way--but it undoubtedly helps as you come into understanding through the use of KNOWLEDGE.

There is no way to have a corner on TRUTH; we must SHARE if we are to turn this thing around. Only intelligent action will save this nation. Only truth will bring forth wisdom and righteousness.

You better check your science. Cause and effect, and entropy are two basic scientifically know fundamentals of universe activity. The fact of great complexity existing in the universe is self evident. It is found all around us, but especially in the human brain and the human mind.

For complexity to exist through the universal operation of cause and effect (we don't see anything other than cause and effect making things work), whatever started cause and effect - started the universe - must have been even more complex than the complexity of the universe.

The universe can't simply have always been. Why not? The fact of entropy would have turned the universe into a state of universal equilibrium throughout, long ago, equilibrium that held little or no complexity whatsoever.

Either you haven't thought about it, or you simply want to ignore it. The thing that started the universe matches our dictionary definition of the word "God."



We don't create anything. We don't even have free will. The appearance of both, free will and personal creation are there, but they are fictions. Why? Because of cause and effect. Something caused us to create and to have free will. It may have been the combined actions of bio-chemical and bio-electrical activity in our bodies, activity stimulated by the food we ate, which was grown because of the heat of the sun, etc., etc.

The point is, we create and feel free will because of cause and effect. Scientifically speaking, we have neither creating ability nor free will.



EDIT: We MAY have free will and creative ability. But if we do, it is because God sustains it. Scientifically speaking, there isn't any free will or creative ability.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God

You just took three mysteries of the universe, and made up the cause of it all. None of those three 'laws' (which aren't really) imply any sort of greater power or 'god'

Regardless -  the mere fact we can create worlds in videogames, and 'create' (support really) life in petri dishes - who's to say we aren't the ones being programmed?

Well, I DO believe God is necessary so I can't argue that one. The moral character of the average person is too weak to keep people in line without God. They need an imaginary force looking over their shoulder to make them behave. Police forces are sorely inadequate for stopping crime. Even the most ancient civilizations invented a system of gods to keep people in line.

I never said God was impossible. That requires you to define what "God" is first. To some people God is a force that controls everything and they are a part of that force like a cell in a brain. Taoism is pretty cool in that is doesn't rely on one godlike figurehead. In Taoism we are all God collectively.

When I talk about God I'm mainly talking about my culture. I don't believe that God was some unemployed carpenter turned evangelist that wants you to behave or he will shove hot pokers up your ass in hell. If that's the case then maybe Jim Jones really was God. Christianity is so unbelievable, has killed so many people throughout history and continues to create so many monsters that I believe their God is complete nonsense. The Christian God and religion creates the Josh Duggers of the world that preach hatred toward homosexuals while molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife. 

The Itsy Bitsy Spider is also a make believe story about a spider's journey up a water spout, made to entertain its intended audience, but spiders actually exist.  This criteria is not enough to exclude the possibility of its existence.  Furthermore, my post illustrates a distinction in the requirements for verification/falsification of God versus a tangible, empirical object.  The only way you can possibly denounce God's existence is on a purely logical basis, either by demonstrating God is unnecessary (disproving the inverse claim that God is necessary), or by demonstrating God is impossible (good luck with that one).  God cannot be verified nor disproved on an empirical basis (i.e. neither by physical evidence or a lack thereof).

You reply is... an ad hominem?! But that is totally irrational and prejudiced!
These researchers are not crazy. For example, Dr. Stevenson's research is well-known and highly regarded for its scientific rigor.
You want us to completely ignore the big questions, like whether there is life after death, because it suits your agenda; why else would you behave so irrationally when presented with this new idea? It is not like I am asking you to believe something without evidence.
 

what the hell is this .seriously ??GOD ?
common guys there is seriously no way possible for IT to exist at least these gods with magical powers ..mujhakahah

Your "evidence" was written by a bunch of kooks on some obscure website. I don't believe them any more than I believe Jim Jones was God and I refuse to drink the kool aid.

God exists. Science proves it with 3 simple science laws.

1. Cause and effect exists within everything. There is no evidence that pure random exists. Newton made it into his 3rd law.

2. There is great complexity in the universe. The brain and mind of man is exceedingly complex. Yet there is no clear evidence of where the complexity comes from.

3. In everything we see entropy - the wearing out, tearing down, eroding, dying. Even the things that we see that are new and fresh, gain their newness at the expense of some other things that lose even more. In fact, if the universe were eternal, it would have worn down to a blah-blah equilibrium long ago.

The only way we can put this universe together in the light of the above three laws is that the universe was set in place by Something that is extremely intelligent beyond the understanding of mankind. Something like that fits the dictionary definition of "God."

----------

Religion is simply the attempt to find out what God and/or this complex universe are all about.

----------

"God" is scientific fact.

"Religion" needs to be taken on faith.

Be that as it may, I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.

You made up a story about your "Christian friend" to entertain yourself and distract yourself from the 52 points of evidence I presented in the previous page. You would rather write down a clever fiction than actually discern something true; how convenient!

Reincarnation is considered by some to be the greatest "unknown" scientific discovery of modern times. Please review the scientific evidence which I have provided for your education; a summary of the 52 points is there in my posts on the previous page. There is no point for you to be in this thread if you cannot address the scientific evidence supporting the survival hypothesis. You think the soul is make-believe, but these 52 points of evidence show that you are wrong; I am not the one who is telling made-up stories in this thread.

"How can you make denial of Allah, who made you live again when you died, will make you dead again, and then alive again, until you finally return to him?" - the Koran [2.28]

relegion is inversly proportional to intelligence ,
people who  dont think or who are very superstitious will surely fall into this trap.

The thing is nothing can actually get a "Scientific proof".

But I see them as the same. To me, the Spider-Man series of books and the God series of books are just make believe stories to entertain their intended audiences. Spider-Man appeals to and was written for a contemporary audience. The God stories are a ragtag collection of different writings appealing to Neanderthal cave dwellers. I'm not going to base my life on either one.

Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god.  It's a false analogy.  Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman.

The simplest reason is this:
- Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified.
- Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified.  But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified.

In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification.

I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol



"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire

A lot of material relating to reincarnation was removed from the Bible.

You can still find some parts of the Bible that clearly reference rebirth; here is a helpful reference:
http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/history/bible.html

You can find extensive detail about life and death in the eight-volume Pleiades Connection series of Phoenix Journals (Journals #22 and #31-37); available here:
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/

OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page.