Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 297. (Read 845654 times)

legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
March 25, 2015, 02:53:37 AM
if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.
As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.
The universe is something greater than we can understand. We believe all things must have a start and an end, but this cannot be applied for the universe. How was time created then? When/how did it all start? There are greater things we as humans just can't comprehend. A concept even greater than time must exist.

I can comprehend this just fine.  Asking something like "when was time created?" is simply a nonsense question.  Paradoxes like these are necessarily self-resolving.  We already know time is a relative function.  If you're thinking about time as purely linear, you're doing it wrong.

Let me give you a hint:  Determinancy vs. Indeterminancy is a false dichotomy.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
March 25, 2015, 02:47:20 AM
How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.
I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

Hey, leave me out of this one.  I didn't make any claims about "souls," nor did I implicate any based upon my claims of Intelligent Design.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
March 25, 2015, 02:44:56 AM
Quote
Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks.

To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect?

It's mostly that standard modern scientists don't WANT to explain that they are proving God exists, more and more all the time in the things of science that they prove. The ones who DO express how science proves the existence of God, are ignored by the universities, or worse, ostracized. It's all a political ploy to tear down the strength of our religious nation, so that the politicians can more easily control the wealth of the people, and take over the world.

Yet the proof for the existence of God is here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 and https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8331233.

Smiley

My professors at Indiana beg to differ. "Can science and religion coexist" is a common theme here.

You seem to be using a definition for "science" that the joint would not agree with. Of course, true science and God coexist. God made the universe. Thus, the things of true science exist right along side of God.

What isn't correct among scientists is often the fictional stories that they make up about science. For example. The Big Bang theory is a fictional story. There is absolutely no scientific basis in fact for it. Why not? Because there are too many unknown variables that could negate the whole BB theory. One would need a proper kind of time viewer to say BB was anything like fact.

Outside of the actual proven things of science - the lab work, the observations - the rest of it is almost pure fiction.

Bible is eye witness reports.

Smiley

You realize that everything you've said so far has been wrong and everyone that took part in this thread has also told you that? Everything about the bible, science. Literally everything. It's amusing to watch you type pure nonsense and lies with such false confidence. Ignorance is bliss, lol.



I can see that you are saying what you are saying. And, you are a little bit scientifically accurate. The branch of science that makes you accurate a little, is political science. Why political science? Because political science approves of propaganda and lies, like you are using.

Did you notice how you said "lol" above? This is because you want to show that you are happy in your ignorance as well as your propaganda, even if the lol you use is not the truth. The question asks itself. Are you really laughing? Or is lol part of your propaganda as well?

Smiley

I was really laughing at your behavior. People like you know their wholly wrong, but continue argueing their false points anyway in hopes that if they repeat it enough, someone else even more ignorant than themselves would believe it.

You are laughing at yourself, because you know that I have presented clear evidence at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 that proves God exists. All the world can see it. But only those who are on God's side will let themselves believe these undeniable facts.

Just so that you can see that you are wrong, in your statement, above, you used "their" incorrectly, and you spelled "argueing" incorrectly. What's the matter? Can't afford a grammatical checker or a spelling checker?

Smiley

Never mind worrying about other peoples spelling.
You just concentrate on repairing your own logic circuit malfunctions.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 25, 2015, 01:33:42 AM
How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.
I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, just philosofical thoughts or whatever you want to call it but that is not evidence and some of it is like this: Ghosts exist but they are invisible to us, now reject that, ofc you cant reject that because disproving something is pretty much impossible but then again you miss the phisical evidence, not just thoughts and vague theories that are not scientific
newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
March 24, 2015, 11:09:27 PM
if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.
As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.
The universe is something greater than we can understand. We believe all things must have a start and an end, but this cannot be applied for the universe. How was time created then? When/how did it all start? There are greater things we as humans just can't comprehend. A concept even greater than time must exist.
sr. member
Activity: 267
Merit: 252
Squirtle squirt.
March 24, 2015, 10:18:14 PM
if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.
As must we find out what created the big bang? What then created that? What then created that? Either way, something has always been there, don't pass God off as impossible. The same rule you put Him under also goes for everything.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 08:28:41 PM
Joshuar, there is no need to explain anything but the evidence I asked you about...

As I said earlier, the mind and hormones control our "personality".

I am aware that the latest theory of mind postulates a quantum link to the brain. Not only is life itself "more than just complicated chemistry", this is also true of the mind!

Quote
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 07:38:49 PM
How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
5) I will see if you can adequately explain the actual observations that were recorded in Eisenbeiss on AECES top 40. I think this is the most powerful case, and your explanation for it is inadequate. You do not provide an adequate reason to reject the evidence, and so you do not disprove the conclusion (from parsimony) that the source was communicating factual information that had "survived" death.
I see no basis for rejecting the evidence of Eisenbeiss and AECES top 40. You failed to plausibly explain ALL OF THAT, just like BADecker and the joint!!
full member
Activity: 165
Merit: 100
March 24, 2015, 06:59:38 PM
if the "God theory" was the accepted theory for the creation of the Universe, we'd still have to find out where God came from as well.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 24, 2015, 05:42:36 PM
How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
2) Showing a trend of observations supporting the "survival hypothesis"; such a hypothesis allows a theoretical grasp on the subject. A good link to get started.
3) Also, I will use theoretical physics to back this up; found in "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul.
You keep repeating this, but it has already been addressed:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_afterlife_belief_scientific

In short, for a theory to be scientific it must be supportable by evidence. For a theory to be supported by evidence it must pass a test that could demonstrate the theory is false.

When I clicked on your links, I expected to see a well thought out hypothesis and experiments that were peer reviewed,  but what I got was a 1990s website designed and written by what seems like a middle schooler.

This is the first paragraph on that website, which contains so many logical fallacies and inaccuracies...I can't even begin to explain:

"A person is seen as a physical body and an etheric personality entangled in a symbiotic relationship with the physical body functioning as an avatar for personality. This relationship is seen as enabling the personality, which has a primarily etheric point of view, to experience the physical aspect of reality from the physical body's perspective. It is speculated that the purpose of this is to enable the personality to have experiences in the physical venue with the expectation of gaining understanding about the operation of reality given the constraints of physical principles.
The personality is seen as having evolved separately from the physical body, and when the physical body is no longer able to sustain life, the personality must return its focus of attention to the etheric in a process referred to as “transition”; colloquially as  “death” and “dying.”"


As I said earlier, the mind and hormones control our "personality". Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Greed, all those are determined by Hormones. Even your sex drive is determined by the hormone, Oxycotin(Also dubbed the "love hormone". Please go take basic biology...It's kind of annoying and dissapointing to have to explain these things when the information is readily available to you, but oh, you choose to believe in absolutely nonsensical theories presented on an obscure website that looks like it was created by a guy "high out of his mind".

You're worse than BADecker honestly, he at least believes in the bible, while it's also entirely false and full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and general nonsense, is a hell of a lot more plausible than the absolute garbage contained in those links.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 05:04:16 PM
How do you intend to prove they do exist?
1) By giving the simplest explanation for observations in various cases discussed on AECES top 40 website.
2) Showing a trend of observations supporting the "survival hypothesis"; such a hypothesis allows a theoretical grasp on the subject. A good link to get started.
3) Also, I will use theoretical physics to back this up; found in "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN".
At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul.
You keep repeating this, but it has already been addressed:
https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_afterlife_belief_scientific

In short, for a theory to be scientific it must be supportable by evidence. For a theory to be supported by evidence it must pass a test that could demonstrate the theory is false.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 04:12:49 PM
Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

Is life to be explained ONLY by its chemistry? The fact that inheritance
is particulate, linear and digital shows that life must be more than just
complicated chemistry.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.

But yet again you dont have any evidence of that. For example when scientists accepted evolution, they didnt accept it because someone said it, they accepted it because there is evidence like fosils and a lot of different methods of dating their age, DNA proofs.

You dont have any of that just a quote from some guy who i really dont give a fuck about

Many scientists agreed:
"This is a work that no one interested in the fundamental relationship between physics and biology can ignore."

This is proven according to the best understanding of information theory and biology; Yockey is a bit of a celebrity; he shows us that idols have feet of clay.

Information theory is the mathematical foundation of molecular biology.
In fact, I have all the latest evidence to support this quote:

Is life to be explained ONLY by its chemistry? The fact that inheritance
is particulate, linear and digital shows that life must be more than just
complicated chemistry.

For example, here is a big piece of evidence:
By analyzing the evolution of such codes by means of coding
theory I showed that the existence of mitochondrial and other codes that
differ in a few assignments from the standard genetic code is a required
consequence of that evolution.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 24, 2015, 02:28:04 PM
Hi Joshuar, I believe I have already responded to your fallacious "arguments".

The concept of the afterlife also applies the notions that souls exist, which they do not.

This fallacy is often stated in this way but what it really means is that belief in the afterlife is not supported by evidence.

[T]his notion of extraordinary claims and proof cannot be considered part of the scientific method. It is only possible to consider it a statement of how bias interferes with objectivity. When skeptics assert this notion, if they are not cynically trying to misdirect the discussion away from evidence they don't want to consider, and if they are being sincere, then they are actually demonstrating that they are refusing to consider the evidence objectively.

giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to prove something exists is equivalent to proving the thing doesn't exist. Therefore, a skeptic can disprove the existence of spirits and the afterlife by giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to demonstrate their existence.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_extraordinary_claims

Just how do you intend to prove your statement that souls exist not, Joshuar?

How do you intend to prove they do exist? I've given the reason for why we have the concept of souls, to try and explain who we are essentially(emotions, personality, thoughts), all of which we now know today as coming from the brain. Belief in the soul stemmed from the fact that they could not previously explain those things(emotions, personality, thoughts etc) and they used the concept of soul to incorrectly do so.

At least do your research as to where these faulty words come from, and besides that it's impossible to fully prove or disprove a entirely theoretical concept such as the soul. With that in mind, it is however logically possible to put the soul into the same category as, " The earth is flat, Earth is center of the universe, Santa Claus exists, The toothfairy exists, Goku just fought Omega Shenron in Central Park) aka fiction.

The flawed concept of the soul is not synonymous with the concept of Consciousness, if that's what you have twisted up btw.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 24, 2015, 12:52:03 PM
Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

Is life to be explained ONLY by its chemistry? The fact that inheritance
is particulate, linear and digital shows that life must be more than just
complicated chemistry.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.

But yet again you dont have any evidence of that. For example when scientists accepted evolution, they didnt accept it because someone said it, they accepted it because there is evidence like fosils and a lot of different methods of dating their age, DNA proofs.

You dont have any of that just a quote from some guy who i really dont give a fuck about
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 12:41:19 PM
Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself

Sure, I will do that as soon as you acknowledge this FACT:

Is life to be explained ONLY by its chemistry? The fact that inheritance
is particulate, linear and digital shows that life must be more than just
complicated chemistry.

Alternatively, you may dispute this by providing YOUR interpretation of Yockey's information.

Why are you bringing up the Bible? This thread is about science.
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 24, 2015, 12:37:11 PM
Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!
Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?



I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?

I say read it ALL and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. Don't let anger get in the way because God is NOT ANGRY, HE IS NOT JEALOUS EITHER.

Why dont you read this instead http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html


And judge by yourself
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 12:35:18 PM
Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!
Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?



I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?

I say read it ALL and then you can judge in wisdom of knowledge. Don't let anger get in the way because God is NOT ANGRY, HE IS NOT JEALOUS EITHER.

If you find something that I post to be in conflict with any other information, please make that known! I have made every effort to remove such conflicts from the information I present here humbly.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 12:33:14 PM
Hi Joshuar, I believe I have already responded to your fallacious "arguments".

The concept of the afterlife also applies the notions that souls exist, which they do not.

This fallacy is often stated in this way but what it really means is that belief in the afterlife is not supported by evidence.

[T]his notion of extraordinary claims and proof cannot be considered part of the scientific method. It is only possible to consider it a statement of how bias interferes with objectivity. When skeptics assert this notion, if they are not cynically trying to misdirect the discussion away from evidence they don't want to consider, and if they are being sincere, then they are actually demonstrating that they are refusing to consider the evidence objectively.

giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to prove something exists is equivalent to proving the thing doesn't exist. Therefore, a skeptic can disprove the existence of spirits and the afterlife by giving adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence said to demonstrate their existence.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_extraordinary_claims

Just how do you intend to prove your statement that souls exist not, Joshuar?
hero member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 505
March 24, 2015, 12:31:35 PM
Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!
Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?



I could post hundreds if not thousands of articles and websites of science that explains how old is the earth, what is the evolution and how it works, how life "possibly" originated because science admits its mistakes but the religion people is always like " yeah god did it and i cant possibly be wrong" wich makes me really mad but then again why should i believe what 3 articles you quoted there instead of millions of scientists around the world?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
March 24, 2015, 12:27:59 PM
 Hi XinXan, I edited that post a bit; I think you will find the proof in the book "HUMAN THE SCIENCE OF MAN" (I may have quoted it already) and also at the "AECES TOP 40" website..

SO I ASK THIS THREAD: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO TALK ABOUT GOD WHEN THERE IS PROOF OF THE AFTERLIFE RIGHT HERE AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT?!
Where is the proof of the afterlife that you are talking of?

Jump to: