Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 343. (Read 845809 times)

Short and to the point.

Everyone needs a savior from death, except if he wants to stay dead.

Why? Because nobody can keep himself from dying. If people could, there would be thousands of people over 200 years old. People don't die just for the fun of it. Rather, they are forced into it, by old age.

I would like to see clear evidence of anyone over 200 years old. Do you have such evidence? If you do, how about a 500-year-old?

It is illogical to the point of laughable that all 150,000 of the people that die everyday want to die. Rather, it is extremely logical that many of them die despite what they want.

If people die because they can't save themselves, then if they want to stay alive, they need a savior. The savior would have to be very knowledge and powerful to keep people alive, especially if he were going to keep them alive spiritually, and make them physically alive at a later date.

Modern medicine doesn't have this ability. Not by a long shot.

What's so hard to understand about this? It is quite simple and straightforward. Don't tell me that all the people that die, really want to die, and simply don't know that this is what they want. That would be insane.

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulating the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

 

The evidence for rebirth does not exist. What exists is the fact that there are similarities between people in life, evidence of genetic memory, and evidence that people can make stories.

Actually, no two people have quite the exact same belief. This means that there are as many diverse religions as there are people. The only difference is the true Christian faith. All Christians who believe in Jesus salvation, have the Holy Spirit in their hearts. Since there is one Holy Spirit, He maintains them all in the same religion, even though they do not understand how He does it, or know that He is doing it, or have outer differing thoughts about aspects of their religion.

Nobody is without religion. Why not? Because nobody knows for a fact what will happen even one instant into the future. Everyone bases his life on hope, hope that the next instant will be at least as good as the last. This is a religion of fate in those who don't have any formal religion. A religion of fate is definitely a religion of faith. The faith is in the experiences of the past, that the future will be at least as good as the past, because nobody knows anything about any of his future. This religion of fate may be automatic in a person who doesn't accept any formal religion.

In everything that people do, they operate by faith, because nobody knows what the future is going to bring, even a nano second into the future.

See my post above. Are you aware of the evidence for rebirth?

All atheists are presumably humanists Since what else could they be?

Humanists do not agree with with rebirth even though the evidence is strong; one may search this thread for 'Eisenbeiss'.


Hey RodeoX I think you missed this post.

Religious folks themselves have 4 main and diverse interpretations of God as per the Baylor Study

1 authoritarian

2 bevenolent

3 Critical or

4 Distant  

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/graphics/religious_bel/flash.htm

click  "four Gods"  then "turn all religions on"  bottom left and you will see that in the USA belief in each of the 4 interpretations is split almost equally if averaged out. ie.  one persons God may not be the same as anothers.

each to their own if it gives them benefit...

Ultimately belief in God or even which type of God is a matter of FAITH

I have no faith , nor need for a God since a very young age after travelling extensively but I do not need to attack or erode others beliefs provided they are not using that to improperly promote or gain advantage by their belief over those that do not believe. The belief itself does not make them better humans but may have contributed to their overall sense of good values and behavior. Coversely in many cases it can be argued ( and I have seen this ) that it actually makes them worse, intolerant of others beliefs , arrogant and superior outlooks and a host of other unsavoury characteristics.

At a stretch I could be persuaded to consider the possibility of a distant God like a being or group of entities that may or may not still exist but even if I did what relevance to my short life based on the DISTANT definition would that make provided I have already gained a very reasonable set of values and behaviour for the environment and cirumstances that I live in? .. effectively none.

So
- There will be no unquestionable solid scientific proof of the existance or continued  existance of a single God

- Belief is purely a matter of faith

- non belief is no better or worse for humanity provided a set of moral, fair, compassionate and reasonable values are taught and practised by both sides.

- using any belief system to promote conflict, war, agression, inequality is wrong and unacceptable in these times.

If I had to pidgeon hole my beliefs it would probably be close to secular humanism although I am not a follower of any group( but mention it so others may consider it) nor have any need for the safety net that belonging to a group, religous or otherwise, ... social, spiritual and financial that comes with that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

and if God is essential to you there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism

and the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Be happy!!!!!

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know. It's the affects of electromagnetic radiation on life. Just because something is complex, doesn't mean some god created it. In fact, it's most likely the opposite(that no god created it). Thousands of years ago human beings couldn't dream of exploring space through high powered telescopes, the very sky itself was a thing of immense mystery. Now we know more about, and know it has nothing to do with god or "the heavens". The same will be said for everything else today that we find mysterious. Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

"Falsifiable" isn't the word I was looking for; I indeed meant "infallible."  It seems you're under the assumption that falsifiability only applies to empiricism.  It doesn't.  There are other kinds of falsifiability.  For example, you can falsify a proposition by showing its inverse to be true.  With specific regard to the reference I provided which proposes a model that implies intelligent design, you would be able to falsify the model by citing an example of something that should be explained by the model but isn't.  And if the model is correct, it falsifies your assertion that God does not exist (again because it is the inverse).

And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality or (specifically) intelligent design without physical evidence and an empirical approach, that's self-apparently nuts.  Notice, for example, that the scientific method cannot even falsify its own assumptions because it cannot subject them to empirical falsification.  One of these assumptions is that we live in a Positivistic Universe.  Empirical falsification of this assumption would require evidence acquired through observation in a Universe that is totally absent of any observers.  General logic, however, can prove that a Positivistic Universe cannot exist right off the bat as result of the sameness-in-difference principle of logic which essentially states that all things reduce to a common medium.  Unlike classical scientists, quantum theorists make no such assumption of a Positivistic Universe.  Ever wonder why academia hasn't yet figured out a way to reconcile the disparities between classical and quantum physics?  Well, that's a huge reason why.

Just watched Morgan Freeman's latest wormhole, our ocean is alive. One huge life form connected by microbes and a nerve system. There you have it, the God who raised us.

Electromagnetic life forms predates hydrocarbon based life forms billions of years, they exist in the stars, metal cores of planets, galaxies and the vast span of the intergalactic space. They are many orders of magnitude more advanced than us. They are God.

It's aleady happened. Synthetic life form.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

We are god now. Please send your tithings this way. I'll send you a tax receipt.

Except that we don't know the future. The money system is near collapse. The world is near war. People are unprepared. More than likely, creating animals and human arms will be one of the last things that people will want to do. They will be too busy trying to survive the hard times that are coming.

All of that and more(creating a human arm), will be possible within the next 200 years. We've come a long way with stem cell research, cloning, and the like. Next step would probably be fast forwarding evolution(Starting with proteins, then forming single cell bacteria, then forming small animals from that, etc etc).

Perhaps no two people can agree on what God is, what He looks like, where He lives, and a host of other things one might think about God. Yet, because the dictionary definitions of God are very generalized, people can easily agree that He exists, even when they don't agree on much of anything about Him.

To me, the evidence for God in the universe is overwhelming. For example, we can make mechanical arms. But we can't make a real arm out of flesh and blood. We might be able to help and direct nature into growing one. But we can't make one. We wouldn't know how to start, because the technology that exists in an arm is way beyond us.

The word your looking for is falsifiable. You can't peer review a proof of god. The hypothesis can not be proven false. Methodology can't be duplicated. A proof of god is not a mathematical proof with universally defined axioms. Religious zealots cant even agree amongst their own sects on what god is.

Well, when you finally grow up and learn something, come on back.

But this thread is interesting anyway, even though it keeps going off-topic.

Science is too limited in scope to comment upon the matter.

There are published proof(s) for God, although not peer-reviewed.  Although, you could say that it(they) have been informally peer-reviewed.  Christopher Langan's paper at www.ctmu.org is one (third bullet point; click on "here").  I've found it infallible so far, to the extent which I understand it and have analyzed it.

Edit: I should also mention that I'm familiar with many critiques of his theory.  I have not found any that are credible.

Edit 2:  Direct link to the theory is here: http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf