Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 291. (Read 845654 times)

Oh, "nature" is entirely "supernatural" now?

No.  It isn't.  Nature is natural specifically because it isn't supernatural.

You should've taken my earlier suggestion and just reduce all your vocabulary to one word, and just repeat that word over and over.  It really doesn't matter what that word is or what it means because you're just going to have it mean whatever you want it to mean.

You're going on ignore for a while.  You make my eyes bleed. 

Here's a perfect example of your ridiculous thinking:

You say: 


Not at all.  There's a logical fallacy about this exact form of reasoning:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In no way does the fact that  more people believe in something make it more true.  Not at all.  Not even close.   

Reminds me of something out of 'The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy'.

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.


Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.


This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.



No, there YOU go.

 

Its same as asking if "Scientific Proof that Ghosts exists ?"

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/think-the-sun-shines-out-of-%28one%27s%29-ass

Why would someone think that rainbows and sunshine comes from the ass?? Anyways if God exists he is a cheeky deceiver and an Evil Genius

He could never come to earth and talk to people because he would lose his mystery.

Kind of like the first time your girl farts in front of you and you realize rainbows and sunshine isn't the only thing that comes out of that ass.

That's what happens when they can't scare people into worshipping their god or staying silent, they either go into circular logic like a robot, or they just have a total breakdown and start getting angry.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page5.htm

http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

There you go

BADecker is now going into full meltdown.


Spreading his poisonous hate all over the forum now.

Now you are doing it. Rather than show any evidence for or against God like BADecker shows for God at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, you attempt to badmouth him.

There you go again, talking off-topic things. why not start a thread entitled something like, "Calling stuff off-topic?" Since you haven shown any evidence or proof that God does or doesn't exist like I have at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, why are you even here. Are you trolling this thread?

Lol.  This entire thread is offtopic.  BADecker was proven wrong 100+ pages ago.

He just posts so his priest won't kick him out of the cult.  Each member needs to try and convert so many souls each week.  

Now that you both are finally agreeing that God exists, is this your scientific proof?

So anything that you dont like you call it off-topic, well thats one way to handle it

Sounds like fun. But it is completely off-topic. Can't you start your own thread to address these issues... that you completely take out of context, anyway?

Look above to the quotes. Have I in these quotes accused you of pointing to a false teaching? I don't see it. So why do you bring up such an off-topic point? And don't answer this question. Why not? The answer would be off-topic.


Who cares if something isn't obvious. Why do you want to keep on draging this thread away from its expressed topic? Don't answer that, because the answer would be off-topic. Rather, go start your own topic, right?


And this is completely off-topic. Is it so hard to start your own thread entitled something like, "List the attributes of God?"



Continually off-topic. In fact, I haven't seen Blakjag state anything in this thread at all that is on-topic. Can't you get your act together and show us some strong evidence that God does or doesn't exist like I have at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 ?

A god would never "return" and send atheists to hell.  Why would he give us overwhelming proof of evolution, give us brains, then punish us for using them?  Makes no sense to me.

Yep i think he is indeed testing to see who is stupid enough to believe that and he will only save the atheists, its his masterplan he invented the religions to check who was foolish enough to believe in them, cheeky god.