Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 305. (Read 845654 times)

An example of science using the evidences there?



Christians believe that a creator is essential. Scientists believe that the idea of a "creator" is pure mythology, and that the complexity arose through natural processes like evolution. Who is right?

You can actually answer this question yourself with a little logic. Here are the two options:

The complexity of life and the universe did arise completely spontaneously and without any intelligence. Nature created all the complexity we see today.
An intelligent creator created all of the complexity that we see today because complexity requires intelligence to create it.
The advantage of the first option is that it is self-contained. The complexity arose spontaneously. No other explanation is required.
The problem with the second option is that it immediately creates an impossibility. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. Therefore, God is impossible.

In other words, by applying logic, we can prove that God is imaginary.

He's still alive, isn't he?    

Why do you attempt to derail the topic of this thread?

If he is wrong, then why is he right?

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

C'mon. You are showing by your actions that you have changed the definition of your name. Your new definition that your actions prove out is Fluffer Overblow.    

Some of the major evidences that prove God exists are found at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395.



EDIT: Wow! Page 223 !

Now that you started changing the definition of words, nobody can believe a word you say. Not really sure why your still posting on here. It all gets labelled the same (even the truth) and pops straight in the bin.

There is one thing wrong with what you say. Science is constantly using the evidences found here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 to prove that God exists. The fact that many of the scientists try to ignore the existence of God, while at the same time proving that He exists, doesn't mean that the proof can be dispelled. It only means that some scientists don't want to acknowledge the truth that is staring them in the face.

On the other hand, there are many scientists who do recognize and accept the proven truth of God's existence.

You are wrong. And not only are you wrong, but you appear to be wrong headed.

Even if I change the meanings of words on the fly (which I don't), that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that under the standard definitions of words, anyone who wants to see the proof that God exists can do so by examining the overwhelming evidences for the existence of God here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, that make up the proof.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

In the first place, the scientific evidences/proofs I show at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 don't have anything to do with religions.

What the people are talking about in your above post, is God. They may not call Him God, or even "Him." But, by some of the definitions for the word "God," what they are explaining are certain aspects of God. Since they are talking within the arena of details, such language should be saved for other threads that examine those points about God. The way they bring those points together might even be the beginnings of one or more new religions.

However, thank you for helping us to prove that God exists by your above post.

My Bible talk mostly has been in response to people like you who keep on bringing up the Bible when they should be staying on-topic like I was when I produced the proofs for God found at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395. Now that I have gone past most responding to Bible questions, why do you bring it up again?

It is YOU who doesn't want to remain on-topic. Since you really seem to want Bible answers, read it.

Since you keep posting your shitty arguments and ''proofs'' :

Answers from religious doctrine are rarely adequate for nonbelievers. In fact, many fervent believers in God reject the argument about God’s timelessness because even timeless beings need explanations for their existence. But if God is the creator of all things, and yet also requires cause, we face an infinite regress of causes. The only way to avoid this infinite regress problem is to state — as Christian theology has always done — that God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God.
While this viewpoint certainly may be attractive, it still fails to convince skeptics who are more likely to favor the idea that the universe contains within itself the reason for its own existence. If that could be true of God, why couldn’t it be true of the universe? There is certainly reason to be skeptical about the common sense intuition that everything must have a cause or that everything must have a reason to be as it is. This perennial assumption has been challenged by the physics of the 20th century that uncovered a mysterious quantum world where things often do not appear to have reason to be the way they are.
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.
The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that  the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.
Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes. He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.

You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now?

It would be off-topic because the author of that site is talking about the Bible, and one, basic, specific religion. He isn't talking about the general existence of god except briefly, in indirect ways.

If you want to downplay Christianity, that is entirely a separate subject from proving or disproving the existence of God scientifically.

Well, I don't know if one can call it proof in the regular sense of the word. But from the standpoint of the cause and effect evidence aspect as listed at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, fetuses are much closer to the building blocks of nature that are putting them together. They are such because their higher thinking has not developed to ride above a lot of automatic physical operations yet. They are still in the formation phases, where the part that will develop into consciousness is sitting right inside the cause and effect formation processes, processes that go back to the Great First Cause.

Now, saying this short paragraph in the way I have, leaves lots of room for interpretation and misinterpretation. Please, before you respond, think about what I have said, and try to understand how it is that fetuses and little children understand that God exists without being aware that they understand it.

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

How do you prove that fetuses know about the existance of God?

Yes, easily. But to do so here would be off-topic.



The little children I was speaking about are the ones who are too young to understand concepts of "... Santa Claus, Unicorns ... "

I would include fetuses in this little-children group.

Could you refute anything that the author said? Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

Part of the reason that God doesn't force people to believe in Him is, He isn't of a mind to take away freedom. He has His own good reasons for it. And they don't include that people should run around wild, ignoring the laws of the Bible.

In the link you listed, above, in the introduction, the author makes a statement that says, "I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian." This statement is entirely incorrect, since it is the little children that are most acceptable to God. Further, the cause and effect evidence at my post at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395 shows, at the very least, that the statement is questionable.

Throughout that website (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html), there are many questionable points that are simply stated as true without any clear reasons why the author accepts things this way. This makes the ideas therein to be questionable, as well. Even though there are a lot of interesting ideas, many of them are ideas only.



EDIT: The author obviously seems to believe in God. It is evident from the last paragraph at the http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html page of the site:Again, it isn't the idea of this thread, Scientific proof that God exists?, to entirely prove out that God is accurately described by one particular religion. Finding that God indeed DOES exist is the beginning. We can discuss which religion best describes Him in other threads.