Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 284. (Read 845654 times)

1)  Please reread what you just said, here.  It's ridiculous.  Make an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy?   Yes, I'm sure it would be convenient for your argument if we just ignore the fallacy of it altogether.  Heck, why talk about fallacies at all?  Why don't we just say that nothing is subject to logical scrutiny and we just all end up accepting everything BADecker has been saying, too?

Your argument is fallacious.  It is impossible for there to be empirical proof of God.  To think there is necessitates that you commit a logical fallacy.  

Here's an analogy:  The logical axiom of identity states that 'x=x.'  Based upon knowledge of this logical axiom, we don't need to go about trying to find evidence for something that isn't itself.  To do so would be idiotic and a complete waste of time.  We already know it's a logical impossibility to find an 'x' that isn't an 'x,' e.g. finding an apple that isn't an apple, a person that isn't a person, etc.

The same goes for inductive fallacies.  We already know with 100% confidence (such that we absolutely know that we cannot possibly be wrong) what the limits of empirical exploration are.  Accordingly, we know what empiricism can't explore or concluded upon.  Intelligent Design/God is one of those things.

Deal with it.  You have no empirical proof for God, and you never will.

It.  Is.  Impossible.

2)  I already know that whatever empirical evidence you have is not proof of God.  I would be happy to read whatever evidence you have, but I will always draw the conclusion that it does not constitute proof of God, and I will be correct 100% of the time.

3)  Yep, here you reinforce your inductive fallacy.  You can't use "the Word of God" to prove God exists before proving that God exists.  You're caught up in a "chicken-or-egg?" problem.  If you haven't proven God to exist, then you don't know its the Word of God.  If you know it's the Word of God, then that means you've already proven to yourself somehow that God exists before looking at the evidence in the first place.

No matter how you spin it, your method doesn't work.  Sorry.

4)  There is no empirical proof of an afterlife, and you more-or-less acknowledge this by correctly describing the evidence as "suggestive."  However, even if you somehow proved an afterlife exists, it does not in any way prove God exists.

5)  The difference it makes is that valid =/= sound.  Unfortunately, your argument isn't even valid because we already know with absolute confidence that Intelligent Design/God falls outside the scope of empiricism, and therefore you will never have empirical proof.  

Well, now. God has been proven to exist by the things written here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395. And I personally believe that all scientific investigation is part of the proof that God exists. This isn't to say that the God of the Bible is the God of the universe.

The Bible, while not as full of evidence for the existence of God, is full of evidence that shows that it is an impossible book. The way it was written, the period of time it took, the traditions of the Jews (Hebrews) regarding it, the facts of life that it expresses, the fulfilled prophesies, the fact that it may be the the book with the widest distribution worldwide ever, the fact that its popularity is beyond any other, all show that it is impossible for it to have come into existence.

So, why and how could an impossible-to-exist book ever have come into existence without God moving it into being?

Or maybe god doesnt exist. I mean the bible is the stupidest book ever, in its time yeah it may have looked like an incredible book but now we know that a lot of things it says are false like the earth age, the earth being flat, the pi number and many many more

On the other hand, the many definitions of the word "God," show that God might be something like infinitely greater than we are... at least in some ways. So why would we think that something like God is or might be "a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit?" After all, nobody knows the limits of the space we inhabit. Science and scientists are gaining understanding, but they are a far distance away from knowing all that there is to know. Maybe, just maybe, God knows and uses it all. The Bible descriptions could easily be not only accurate, but fairly understating about the greatness of God, and it is simply mankind that is extremely weak in understanding nature and the universe around him.

You can very easily prove God exists; all you must do is determine what constitutes as God.  "I say God is the universe, and the universe is real, therefore God is real"--that sort of thing.  But as far as the biblical descriptions of God go, no, he's a paradoxical impossibility invented by people with no knowledge of the limits of the space we inhabit.

The Phoenix Journals might suggest that they have refuted something, and they might act like they have refuted something, but they have refuted nothing. Why not? Because the sources of information that is recorded in the Phoenix Journals may be liars. Thus, the whole of the Phoenix Journals may be lies, and the main theme of the Phoenix Journals may exist to be a lie.

Of course, if the main theme of the Phoenix Journals is to be and maintain a lie, then the Phoenix Journals are being truthful in that one area, even though the truth is not very evident to its followers.

1. Try making an argument that does not rely on the notion of fallacy.
2. Have you ever tried READING MY TRUTH?
3. Your statement is little different from the Problem of the Criterion, but here I am giving you God's WORD and the references to "the content-source problem" so that you may decide for yourself if Phoenix Journals contain the truth you would rather have on your side--every time!
4. There is strong evidence for the afterlife, in Journals and in parapsychology, so what comes next for science? Take a look at the "Quantum Parapsychology" page on FB.
5. What you are saying to me in this thread is not more important than what is said right here in this quote; that is why I am saying it to you, because I wish to draw your attention to something important (about God and Truth)...

I am trying to go beyond what the joint and Herbert Spencer are saying:

If I succeed in proving the afterlife while failing to prove God, it is fine with me; at least the truth is known!

Phoenix Journals have refuted many long-standing lies.

The proofs come from Yockey; I have linked you to enough papers already.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10872930

There is no point in discussing science with you when you ignore the references, just like with the joint and BADecker.

Why do you think its more than that? Do you have any proofs for your afirmations or just vague thoughts and conclusions that you make

Why do you deny that life is more than complicated chemistry when this is the latest understanding of information theory and biology?

Oh, it is because you have not read the truth that I referenced for you.

You can conclude, but you would be wrong.

You're committing an inductive fallacy.  Specifically, you are holding up evidence to a preconceived notion of God which you haven't proven to be true, but which you must assume to be true if you are to confirm that the evidence proves God exists.

This is exactly why it is impossible for there to be any empirical proof of God's existence. 

Simply put, you can't say evidence proves God unless you already know what God is, but at the same time you can't know what God is until you've proven it.

All ''proofs'' for god end up being the same thing, philosophical thoughts that are not proof of anything. There is no scientific proof of God right now, if there was all the scientists would talk about it wouldnt they? Why would 90% of the scientists deny the existence of god? One thing is for sure tho, The Bible God definitely does not exist.

Hi Joint,

The Eisenbeiss case supplies evidence that all atheists are mistaken; if this is only "suggestive" of God, that is fine with me because man already has TRUTH sufficient to back up an adequate and complete understanding of professor Eisenbeiss' observations. The best explanation will incorporate all of the data, and I am supplying that TRUTH right here.

Inspired writings are suggestive of a higher truth, and they can be gauged by way of the content-source problem. Such an analysis suggests that the Phoenix Journals are true; Phoenix Journals also provide one with a better understanding of the content-source problem, so I am promoting this content in order to educate readers about the true nature of rebirth.

So, I conclude that it is a lie to say that God does not exist or that God cannot be evidenced scientifically; the simplest and most adequate understanding of the evidence for survival demands something like God, and by the way, you can read the scientific proof in the Journal called "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".

Yes, I did.

.

It is doubtful that one could adequately explain the evidence for survival in this manner; I think the Eisenbeiss case is too strongly supportive of the survival hypothesis.

Skeptics have not provided an adequate response to the observations of professor Eisenbeiss.

The Greatest Story Never Told...

Good day to everyone; I am bumping this thread because I have posted a lot of truth here.

For some reason, the joint and BADecker have yet to respond to my posts.

I will not stop posting the truth about man and God in this thread; it is too important!




I am making this post so that others may also share TRUTH in this thread.

No scientific proof that the joint exists.

I'll take a look at it.  But again, it's a theoretical and logical impossibility for there to be empirical proof of God.  Empirical proof or "evidence" is only relevant to things that are observable.  By definition, an "intelligent designer of reality" has non-observable components.  Therefore, you can't prove God with evidence.  The best you can do is a logical proof, and then find suggestive or corollary evidence to support it after the fact.

To make an analogy, when you have a thought you are exposed to the non-observable content and meaning of that thought.  Others around you might be able to do an empirical neurological analysis of your brain at the time you're having a thought, and certain types of electrical and neuronal activity will suggest that you are indeed having a thought.  As a result, they can find suggestive, corollary evidence that you are having a thought, but they wouldn't be able to make this suggestion if you didn't know your thought existed in the first place so as to be able to link brain activity to it.