Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 353. (Read 845809 times)

No, “it” (bank of bits) would still be biblical (i.e., Christ-esque) faith.

There is no real scientific proof of God.
Furthermore, would it really be faith if there was proof?

There is NO evidence that someone has "received salvation".

As far as we can see, the law of karma applies, and there are no saviors.

You keep on spouting this same old line, without examining the facts about practical entropy.



In everything we see naturally, the 2nd Law appears to be at work. There might be theory or twisted math that suggests otherwise, but there is also supporting math.

The complex operations regarding action and reaction involved in the growing of a baby into a person cannot be followed. Therefore, the "baby" example above is meaningless. After all, you need to consider all kinds of things, including size of the baby and the single cell pre-fetus, and everything including the fact that the baby will get old and die one day.

This is a totally erroneous application of opposition to the 2nd Law.



The simple swinging pendulum shows that entropy acts throughout. The final times before entropy causes the state of the universe to be evenly distributed material and energy throughout, will be very lengthy? Why? Because, just like heat flows more rapidly between objects that have a great temperature difference, and even as heat flow between objects of similar temperature is much slower, even so the last moments of entropy will take an eternity, except for one thing...

... Let me contradict myself. Time is affected by entropy, as well. As time coalesces into uniformity, it will cause an apparent speeding up of the material/energy coalescing. Personally, I think we can see this happening in the increased rate of maturation of children.

The result will be non-existence of this whole universe, as predicted by the Revelation in the Bible.



What does this have to do with anything? The entropy of order and disorder both will bring about a cataclysm that will entirely destroy all things in ways that we don't have a clue about.


The point is this. There are only two places we see complex machinery in this universe. They are: 1) man-made complex machinery, and; 2) the far greater complex machinery of the universe itself.

The point we are looking for is proof for or of God. Since:
A. All man's machinery is taken from his examination of the machinery of the universe;
B. The universe's machinery is way more complex than man's, even beyond understanding;
C. The flow of cause and effect that directs man into making complex machinery comes from the machinery of the universe, as well;

D. The result is that Whatever or Whoever God is, be God the universe itself or Something Else, either inside or outside of the universe or both, God most certainly does exist, by definition of the word "God" combined with the machinery we see in the nature of the universe.



EDIT: Consider the ability of mankind to think. Since the universe directs the cause and effect actions of man, and since the result of some of that cause and effect is that man can think, how can the universe give thinking to man without having it imbedded in the universe itself in the first place?

There is no 'case', there is only wild imagination summed up so perfectly by the end of your last sentence.

We might as well have them arguing the case for the existence of the train to Hogwarts.

Yet people try to prove over and over again that this case can be solved with science and reason. That is why we have always a huge discussion about nothing...

You persistently, and erroneously, cite entropy to support your creationist argument when, the truth is, you are misrepresenting the concept.


You claim that the natural order of things is not to become more complex, yet they can and do become more complex, so you crowbar in, not a rational explanation which employs an understanding of physics, chemistry and biology which easily serve to describe the process by which complexity arises but, instead, you declare ignorance of such things EXCEPT for your claim that you *know* it is an intelligent designer making this complexity?

As I said, you are misusing the term 'entropy'.

The reason that this kind of thinking is NOT false analogy is, all of man's complex machinery that he designs and invents comes from what he observes in nature.

Someday man may be able to put together the machinery of a tiger, from scratch. If he does, however, where will he have gotten the machinery ideas and basics? He will have gotten it all from the examples of complex machinery that exist in the universe, in nature.

If there is one thing that is readily observable it is, complex machinery does NOT simply come about out of nothing. Rather, it is the other way around. The more complex the machinery, the more the entropy.

There is NO evidence of machinery coming into being spontaneously. There is great evidence of entropy. More than likely, the idea of machinery coming into being spontaneously in the face of all the entropy evidence to the opposite, simply shows the entropy existing in the thinking of the people who think this way.

Fuck I don't know why I am drawn in to even try and correct you on this but . . .


Just because you see complexity you are unable to understand the origins of does not justify the extraordinary claim that an omnipotent super-being put it all together.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You simply provided proof of your ignorance and how you are even appealing to that ignorance as though it provides evidence of the validity of your extraordinary claim towards intelligent design and an intelligent designer.

You're not just ignorant, you're being wilfully, almost joyfully, ignorant. You find your own ignorance enormously satisfying because you are using it as a mental comfort-blanket full of myth, mystery and magic in order to dream up your very own Universe.

There isn't absolute proof for anything. For example, when you toss some pure (even not so pure) sodium into a container of water, the resulting hydrogen and sodium hydroxide violently happens every time. Every person that does this simple thing in just the same way, gets exactly the same results every time. It can be done thousands of times, and the result is still the same. The question is, Is this proof that it will always happen this way? Or is this proof that it has only happened every time so far?

Under the above questioning, there is no absolute proof for anything.

Animals use simple machines that are in nature.

People make and use complex machines, all based on what they see in nature. If animals could think along the lines of there being a god or not, they would look at man and suggest that man was a god. Why? Because the advanced, complex machinery that man makes, and the advanced reasoning that he uses, is so significantly advanced beyond what animals can do, that mankind fits the dictionary definition of the word "god," at least with regard to animals.

The amazing thing is that man is unwilling to admit a God beyond himself, even though he sees the universe full of ultra-complex machinery that is way advanced beyond anything that he can make, or even reason out how it works correctly. If the animals could reason things just a little more than I listed above, they would see the God of the universe, even though mankind is unwilling to do so. This means that man would rather become stupid like the animals than reach out, take hold of God, and perhaps become like Him. And what's even more amazing is that mankind can't even see that God most certainly exists, even though there is no absolute proof for anything.

Strange. No proof that man exists, either.

There's no proof invisible pink unicorns aren't dancing around your house while you sleep, but that's no reason to put out bowls of sugar lumps.

Seriously, look at what actually happens in this thread. Someone points out the epic degree of intellectual dishonesty required to maintain a belief in something for which there is no, nor has there ever been, evidence whatsoever, and thus follows a flurry of fallacious posts from two theists arguing the toss over how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

It's paradoxical. There is no proof that a god exists, yet there is no proof that a god doesn't exist.

One major chunk of evidence for the existence of God works like this.

Animals use machines. Sometimes they make simple machines. Once in a great while they make compound machines. Think of an chimpanzee that uses a rock to crack a nut open. A simple machine.

People make extremely complex machines at times. Regarding the complexity and greatness of the machines that people make, if animals could think about a god, they would certainly say that people are gods.

People get all their machines from the machinery they see in nature. In fact, people are just scratching the surface of finding and using the machinery in nature. Search for the videos in Youtube that show the operations and workings of living cells. Living cells are highly complex machines, way beyond the ability of man to build.

So far, these machines of nature are beyond the duplication of mankind. If people could duplicate them, we would have figured out how to live forever long ago. As it is, there are still people is several third-world countries who live as long or longer than we do, and we don't know why. The machines of nature and the universe are that complicate.

Who or What made the machines in the universe? Who or What made the universe itself? because the whole universe acts like a big machine.

Even if it was the universe and nature that developed itself, it is machinery. And we can see that the more advanced the animal, the more advanced the machinery that he/it makes. So, whatever made the machinery of the universe is extremely greater than man.

Whatever or Whoever made the advanced machinery of the universe, machinery so advanced that it is way beyond anything we can make, the universe Maker fits the definition of the word God, even if it was nature that developed all the super-advanced machinery of the universe.

The questions aren't, "Is there a God?" or, "Does God exist?" The questions are, "Does God reveal Himself/Itself to us in a more direct manner than simply showing us His advanced machinery of the universe?" or, "Does God somehow talk to us through our spirits?"

We know by the examples of what exists in the universe, and how weak we are in being barely able to use the things of the universe, that God does indeed exist.

I certainly don't see any definitive evidence of it's existence. But does the lack of that proof imply a non-existence?

The Bible itself explains that it is written for the purpose of saving souls.

Since the saving of souls includes those people who like space travel, God even saw to it that there was at least one spaceship talked about in the Bible. It is in the beginning of the Book of Ezekiel.

God spoke the whole universe into existence. But that was His language, one that science is trying to understand, but never will be able because it is way too complex. The Word that God gave to us that we CAN understand is the Bible. It is the Word of God that we can understand.

God loved us. So, He limited His speaking to us in language that we could understand to the Bible, plenty of words to use to save us. God limited it so that we could understand Him because of OUR limitations... not so that we would think that He has limitations.

Are you sitting in judgment of me?

Where is your proof of claim?

How do you know that I am not qualified to judge or that I do not understand the concept of exploration?

This topic is about scientific proof that God exists. Do you have such proof?

Your questions might be valid. But even if they are, they don't go anywhere. Why not? Because throughout this thread I have answered way more than you have. You don't seem to even be able to numerically list one or two benefits for your stuff. Why not? Is it because this is all a game that you are playing? Is it because you don't know enough about your stuff to list any benefits? Is it because there aren't any benefits?

If you happen to catch up to me in explaining what God is about, then I might consider answering some of your ignorant questions.

If your bible convinces you that God only said those things which are in the bible then obviously you are using that book to limit God and God's WORD.

Do you sit in judgment of ALL?
I still ask you for proof of claim with every post.
You are not qualified to judge these things because you do not understand the concept of exploration.
You have no basis to reject the Journals without the aforementioned proof.

Without explanation as to how this question fits with the statement that follows it, there isn't any reason to these things.



What are you doing here sitting in evil? Since you can't go out into the parking lot and jump to the moon, you are limited. By your own statements, you are full of evil, because your limitations are so great that you can't even come close to understanding what limitlessness is all about.

As long as you won't accept the Bible as the Word of God, and as long as you think there is salvation and eternal life in some other source than Jesus Christ of the Bible, your limitation only increases.