Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 261. (Read 845578 times)

OK, here is a summary to get you started:

One can run (further) experiments and investigations, or one can realize that the evidence (52 salient points) already merits a conclusion, and that a discovery is at hand.

Because there already exists a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence supporting veridical perception [during a "Near-Death Experience"], it may only be a matter of time before hard, scientific evidence of an afterlife is found.

The link to the 52 salient points is on this page of the thread, 2 posts before your first reply. I have made a deduction that God exists based on accepting the survival hypothesis which is strongly evidenced by those 52 salient points.

For example, Dr. Stevenson's conclusions have been confirmed in replication studies (#39); anyone can replicate his work. Many other scientific studies are cited. Reincarnation has been called by some to be the greatest unknown scientific discovery today.

According to recent studies, only about 10% of people are conscious shortly before their death. Of this group, 50% to 67% have Death Bed Visions. This universal anomalous phenomena strongly supports the survival hypothesis just like veridical perception in NDE.

Even more importantly: Skeptical arguments against NDEs are not valid (#34-36, and others). NDEs support the reality of rebirth (#38).

It simply will not do to reject qualitative observations (#36). Many lines of evidence unite in supporting the reality of rebirth (#37).

From the recent AWARE study:
One case was validated and timed using auditory stimuli during cardiac arrest... [C]onsciousness and awareness appeared to occur during a three-minute period when there was no heartbeat. This is paradoxical, since the brain typically ceases functioning within 20-30 seconds of the heart stopping and doesn’t resume again until the heart has been restarted. Furthermore, the detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.

“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

How can you prove something scientifically if it cannot be measured?

What evidence? Again, I haven't a clue what is being argued.You should write up your findings, prove your conclusions, then let other scientists run there own experiments to prove or disprove your theory.

its better to be quiet on somethings ... but i am sure it exists

Keked... is this a joke or real?

I'm surprised Christians claim to know so much about souls... if I remember correctly the Bible only mentions souls and the afterlife in a very vague way - something about wailing and grinding of teeth, chaff getting burned, be with me in the kingdom of God etc. I once sold a guy's soul for Bitcoin so I'm the real authority on these matters... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wts-a-guys-soul-he-sold-it-to-me-for-a-protein-bar-1011225

Maybe one of you Christians can settle a debate I'm having with a friend. Does a two headed baby have one soul or two? And does a baby with two bodies connected to one deformed head have one soul or two?

I think they both have one soul but if you chop them in half real quick before they die and they live for a few minutes that's two souls dying. My Christian friend believes neither of them have a soul because they're abominations born from a sinner that had sex with a jackel. Who's right?

While peer-reviewed research certainly has its merits (obvious ones), you certainly must recognize the inherent problems with this standard as it means that: 1) virtually nobody with a better idea has a chance at garnering the attention his idea deserves unless he has a degree and the appropriate academic connections; 2) only tentative, rather than radical, progress will be made due to both the need for consensus among like-minded (not necessarily best-mided) people and the threat to the works of others before them who are protective of their own ideas; 3) generally, new ideas will only garner attention if they can be backed by previously established ones (example: the APA rejected a research proposal I submitted on the sole basis that it was novel and therefore I had no one to cite...um, wtf?!); 4) etc.

The peer-review process as it stands is nice and has merits, and simultaneously it's arguably the greatest impediment to progress and knowledge that exists at a societal level.

Atheists like RodeoX would rather have us ignore the big questions because the evidence is against them.
By ignoring qualitative observations, atheists reject rationality and mountains of observed evidence (52 salient points);
this ignorant behavior is not intellectual honesty, it is a façade (or "house of cards")!

I think that's not enough proof that God exists. But proving that the same generation mix with each other over time.

I'm still waiting for someone to direct me to the peer reviewed scientific journal where this is published. If it is not, then it is simply not science. Scientific research is not conducted by basement dwellers at some public forums.

If there were actual science involved it would be published, reviewed the world over, the experiments would be recreated and tested, experts in their fields would try additional experiments. And no, the guy at Bible camp is not an expert in science. Indeed he must reject science to keep the whole house of cards from falling. 

That's taking the assumption that there is a God for granted in the first place. If we all agreed on that same assumption and took it for granted, your statement would be fairly logical (assuming that no one had ever questioned the existence of God). I have seen religious people use science effectively to understand natural phenomena and learn more about the world around them, and they would probably agree with your statement, but anyone who has ever questioned the existence of God and then applied honest scientific reasoning to try to answer that question may not be so convinced. This is why science and religion are incompatible: because in religion questioning the existence of God, questioning the "miracles" or trying to look for other explanations for them is considered wrong, while in science, it is easy to see that many of the so called miracles would be either physically impossible (therefore a human-fabricated story) or else more easily and realistically explained by human artifice rather than some unseen and non-measurable force that can break the laws of physics at a whim.

Yes, it's true; many in science have derived inspiration from religion and spirituality. Moreover, many atheists changed their perspective after having a transcendental experience called NDE, they became more open to the possibility of life after death.

Here is a list of famous scientists and what they said about God; it may be surprising to see so many rational thinkers converge on the same concept.

I think the issue here is that a lot of people do not believe that there can be a connection between science and religion. They think that if you believe in science that you cannot believe in religion because you are all into the logic and disproving God. And those who believe in religion are not smart enough to deal with or understand science. But the fact is, science can be used as a tool to learn and understand more about the world that God has created for us all to enjoy

There are a lot of great scientists who say that they were able to believe more in God when they began to study science. They were amazed at the world around them when they were studying various parts of the world. But most people think this is not true. They think that science needs to be separate from religion, but in fact these two things can work together well and should be studied and enjoyed together. They are not the enemies and some of the best scientists in the world, even those who were completely against God to start with, become very religious after they began to study more.

Of course, there are a lot of different posters on here who do not believe that God exists, I guess that is their right, but I do believe in Him. I believe there are just too many miracles and wonderful things that go on in the world and would not be possible without the help of God. Yes, bad things go on in the world, but there are so many good things if you just take the time to look around and see all of it. The saddest part of all this is what all of these people who don’t believe in God have nothing to believe in and nothing to help them get through the good times and the bad times.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Which.html

I like this answer.

Anyone tell me, who was the first - the chicken or the egg?

Jesus loves the little children
The fucked up children of the world
Doubled headed, dumb or fright
They are funny in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

I assure you that he is totally real. There's a lot of evidence that can proved that God is existed.

BUMP for the concise scientific proof of God posted in this other thread; it is a logical deduction starting from empirical observations and easily-accepted premises:

1) Observe the numerous empirical observations supporting "the survival hypothesis", which is part of "the scientific study of consciousness"; the survival hypothesis, i.e. "life after death", is the simplest explanation for the evidence (summarized in 52 points), so it is most correct. For this proof, only point #36 (linked below) needs to be accepted; this point states that the overwhelming evidence (51 other points) now places the burden of proof upon those who are skeptical of the survival hypothesis. Therefore, the survival hypothesis is valid knowledge, "proven" by the weight of the evidence (and the counterargument proposed by LaudaM above is insufficient, even if correct).
2) Consider the Definition of humanism as necessarily rejecting the survival hypothesis. That is, all humanists reject the supernatural, god(s), "life after death", etc. This is because humanism is Defined as the idea that Man is the basis for existence, thought, and ethics and acts as the founder and guarantor of knowledge and thought.
3) Consider the Rational Principle that all reason and thinking must be backed by substance (especially when it comes to the God-question) and that therefore any denial of (a Supreme being called) GOD as the guarantor and founder of knowledge and reason is necessarily an affirmation of (a Rational being called) Man as that guarantor.
4) Conclusion: The knowledge acquired from the evidence is in conflict with humanism; therefore, GOD is the guarantor of knowledge, not Man.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11835382

The mind is not the brain; the human mind is not sourced in the brain any more than the internet can be found in your laptop or your modem.


What is the real function of our brains?
Is it the brain tissue itself that creates our intelligence, or is it the electrical and conductive nature of the brain that allows us to connect to intelligence? More or less like a sophisticated antennae, just like Nikola Tesla observed of himself early in the 20th century.



Briefly, I will explain the evidence for the holographic brain concept; the first example is the double-slit experiment:







Sources:
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/16/proof-human-body-projection-consciousness/
http://www.projectglobalawakening.com/2014/03/29/nature-of-mind/
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm