Scientific proof that God exists? - page 337.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: the joint on March 03, 2015, 10:37:49 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 06:13:42 PM

Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN

edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?

You now know the fact..

Stop with "scientific proof of God" garbage. It is simply a logical impossibility for there to be any. Empirical methods of exploration like the Scientific Method have a scope of exploration which is simply insufficient to comment about the matter whatsoever. Period. The end.

Anybody who concludes one way or another about God's existence based upon empirical evidence (or a lack thereof) is wasting air, and has no idea what he is talking about.

Wowsers.. you are the only one here wasting air with your irelevant nonsensical crap that means nothing to anyone else, I have been posting evidence taken from a plethora of books, (instead of one) including the oldest manuscript on earth.. why try to answer if you know you cant? Take it up with the OP who asked for Scientific proof that God exists. Since the oldest manuscript on earth deals with not only scientific proof, but shows the way to discovering so called masonic secret's, which in turn show not only proof of, but where to find it, I would ask you again, take it up with the OP. When he closes this thread, then that'll be that, but some people want the evidence I have posted, since no-one else is capable due to having masonic brethren as family. Or believe in that christian nonsense that sends you to THEIR house.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 06:13:42 PM

Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN

edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?

You now know the fact..

Stop with "scientific proof of God" garbage. It is simply a logical impossibility for there to be any. Empirical methods of exploration like the Scientific Method have a scope of exploration which is simply insufficient to comment about the matter whatsoever. Period. The end.

Anybody who concludes one way or another about God's existence based upon empirical evidence (or a lack thereof) is wasting air, and has no idea what he is talking about.

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

God is love. In my opinion, The love energy "purple plate" is physical evidence of God.

Science has proven that by projecting love or positive energy to a plant, the plant will flourish. The plate energy will also do the same thing to plants. Burns, cuts, aches and pains involve a sudden change to the normal vibration rate of tissue. The theory is that the energy around the plates helps to accelerate the healing and thus return the injured area to its normal rate of vibration.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy09.htm

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Shame we're clearly not dealing with the scientific proof of god, which according to your question may suggest that WE are the creator, as guided by the ALL-SOUL - (GOD) shown in my remix of the emerald tablets, that part where it state's "Formless was He within his Temple (galaxy/universe?), yet was He formed in the image of men." <-note the last wod is not MAN

edit: is it possible that the temple is the head?

You now know the fact..

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:59:25 PM

I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?

Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?

Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups Wink

By proving its inverse true.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:59:25 PM

I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?

I use the words that I do because they serve a specific purpose(s), namely consistency and poignancy.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

I think what I'm trying to tell you, is that without all the gobbledegook words you use, quite simply, the universe is a mental process, hence how people can control the elements.. does this mean I get my degree in bullshit now lol?

Just out of curiosity, how does one falsify an assumption?

Assumption being the mother of all fuck ups Wink

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: (oYo) on March 03, 2015, 05:51:59 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 03, 2015, 05:14:18 PM

Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:

Quote

In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).

Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.

I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.png

Christopher Hitchens comes up short on this issue for he fails to consider logical falsification.

Hitchens was wrong, and if he were still alive I'd love for him to provide physical evidence for support of his statement (rather than the logical basis he would undoubtedly defer to).

Edit: By the way, I'm a huge fan of Hitchens with respect to his political commentary and his anti-dogmatic stance about religion.

Edit 2: Yet, based upon the quote, do you think Hitchens would dismiss, then, the non-empirical assumptions of science? Science (well, at least classical physics) depends upon the assumption of a Positivistic Universe, an assumption for which there is not, nor could there ever be, any physical evidence. Empirical falsification of this assumption would require empirical data collected via observation in a Universe totally void of observers, leading to an irreconcilable contradiction. Logical falsification of a Postivistic Universe is amazingly simple.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Lets pretend for a moment that the sky above reflects that which is below, in this case, show me earth above, without pointing to the ball you stand on..

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

Quote from: the joint on March 03, 2015, 05:49:39 PM

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:46:27 PM

BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.

Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..

The product of intelligent design is a mental construct.

If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true.

And for at least 500 years, advanced freemasons have known that the universe is mental. Thanks in part to the emerald tablets of Thoth Wink

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

Quote from: the joint on March 03, 2015, 05:14:18 PM

Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:

Quote

In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).

Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.

I think the quote by Christopher Hitchens best addresses unfalsifiable assumptions.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/photos/data/500/0308-ScienceVsFaith.png

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:46:27 PM

BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.

Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..

The product of intelligent design is a mental construct.

If reality is demonstrated to be a mental construct, i.e. made from/by mind, then it follows intelligent design is true.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:43:14 PM

It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.

There are different kinds of falsifiability. Empirical falsifiability is only one of them. Logical falsifiability is another.

It is impossible to empirically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe wielded by science.

However, it is possible to logically falsify the non-empirical assumption of a Positivistic Universe by proving its inverse to be logically true (i.e. we do not live in a Positivistic Universe).

Similarly, claims that intelligent design is not empirically falsifiable are true, but insignificant. Intelligent design can be proven true by proving its inverse false, or could be falsified if its inverse were proven logically true.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

BY intelligent design, do you mean the design is intelligent, or it was designed by an intelligent designer? Because The only consistancy in nature is the randomness of everything, as nothing appears twice in the same form.

Edit: Now that takes intelligence.. or at least a record of what went before, so as not to repeat..

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

It's the empirical evidence that get's me.. you have evidence of whatever, or you dont. The rest, as earlier stated, is nothing more than empirically unfalsifiable assumptions, assumptions being wild guess's without evidence at best.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:26:08 PM

You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.

Yes, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to the consideration that I was making.

That consideration is this: A person who believes that a lack of empirical evidence for intelligent design is valid enough to discredit it invokes a contradiction in that the same person is unwilling to apply the same scrutiny as he does with regards to intelligent design to the empirically unfalsifiable assertion of the method which he claims supports his belief.

So, whether God actually does or does not exist is irrelevant because the point I'm emphasizing is an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who deny a belief in the existence of intelligent design based upon a lack of physical evidence.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

You miss my point: whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant - You did make this statement. The rest is just assumption.

Edit: Oh look, it's intelligent snow. Snow is intelligent in that it can produce trillions of fragments of frozen water, fragments that are symetrical, and who's points can be counted, so yes, snow is an intelligent design.. without the brain to know so.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: Decksperiment on March 03, 2015, 05:20:12 PM

To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?

...That's not what I said.

Decksperiment

sr. member

Activity: 630

Merit: 250

To quote the above, you clearly state god is irelevant, so your point of posting this in this thread is?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: (oYo) on March 03, 2015, 04:38:18 PM

Quote from: the joint on March 03, 2015, 04:30:57 PM

Quote from: (oYo) on March 03, 2015, 04:18:47 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on March 03, 2015, 04:13:43 PM

Which god did science prove exists?

SPOILER ALERT:
The one you happen to believe in. What luck! Roll Eyes

LOL!

I wouldn't use that meme in response to an invalid point...the irony is unsettling.

This whole thread is a joke.

This thread makes about as much practical sense as this schematic diagram.

Most posts in this thread can be joked about. But I've yet to hear a valid response to this:

Quote

In the same way that the scope of science is insufficient to comment upon its own non-empirical assumptions, it is also insufficient to comment upon the non-empirical aspects of God (again, assuming God exists; whether He actually does or does not exist is irrelevant to this consideration).

Anyone against the idea of intelligent design based upon science (or, specifically, the lack of physical evidence for an intelligent designer) faces the challenge of reconciling that belief with the contradictory notion that it is perfectly permissible to accept the empirically unfalsifiable assumptions wielded by science.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 337. (Read 845809 times)