Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 481. (Read 845809 times)

That "faith and spirtualism are innately human" is an interesting hypothesis.  The evidence you present that "there has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of 'religion'" is interesting, and seems to bear on the question, but IMO, you need to go a lot farther to show innateness. 

Consider, for example, that you might find that every human civilization in recorded history has the word "fish" somewhere in their records.  This doesn't mean that humans are innately programmed to write "fish" when they write.  It's just as likely that writing "fish" is a product of our environments as of our biology.  Also, consider that there are vast numbers of humans who have lived outside of "recorded history".  It may be that "religion and spiritualism" are as much an aspect of the organization of cultures who write things as an aspect of the biology of the humans who wrote them.  Finally, you might not be right about your claim that "every human civilization in recorded history has some sort of 'religion'".  Seems like that claim depends a lot on your definition of religion.

Faith and spiritualism are innately human, it has been with us for as long as we have had the ability to ponder existence. There has never been a human civilization in recorded history without some sort of "religion". Atheism and Darwinism one could argue, are also faiths.

To group people together with extreme fundamentalist psychopaths, simply because they have faith in a higher power is in and of itself a form of extremism.

You and people like you are what is wrong with the world.

We need all the crazies located in one place so we know who they are, this is like the Christian version of ISIS on the internet.

Yeah, I did just compare you assholes to ISIS, deal with it.

Damn I wish I could ignore this thread now.  It's gone from specious claims about scientific proofs to pure, unadulerated, schmoozeball evangelism.  I heard waaaay too much of this kinda nonsense when I was a child.

To throw a wrench into our thinking...

Might God want a challenge? Perhaps just for sport? Yet one that harms nobody, yet is a true challenge? So, how would God create this challenge?

God knows everything except for one little thing. God made us in such a way that He doesn't quite know the innermost, deepest workings of each human heart... especially the hearts of those who believe in Him. Not that He couldn't. But that He hides it from Himself in such a way that there is challenge for Him.

This is way more complicated than the way I'm saying it, so don't jump down my throat for not writing a book, and for not describing something, clearly, that might not even be describable in English.

God is good, all the time. So, the thing that he made to challenge Himself, is also something that is good. It's good for us, and it is good for Him. And even when we try to fight Him, the challenge has become more interesting for Him, though He never wanted it that way. But now that it IS that way (we attempt to fight God), he has found a method to make it all good for any of us who want to accept Him.

Salvation is exciting. Salvation is wonderful. Yet the destruction of those who will not accept salvation, is something that will be long gone in the great future that is awaiting those of us who accept salvation.

The logic string proposed here is fundamentally flawed. God by definition is omnipotent, so if the hypothesis begins with "God exists and is omnipotent" the answer to any rule imposed to deny the existence of god can be explained through omnipotence. An Omnipotent entity would not be governed by any laws and could act in ways that contradict each other.

I want to add that I do not follow any organized religion but my opinion is slightly biased based on where I was born and my unwavering faith in science.

Seems to me like what you've done here is define `a priori`, which is fine.

Then you go on to say that pure positivism leads to a paradox.  Ok.

I don't see where you've connected this to any 1000s-of-years-old ideas and what you wrote certainly doesn't look like a proof.

Anyway, I'm not one of the people who said that science can explain everything.  But this is a far cry from what you said above "scientific method is based on invalid assumptions".

For me, there's a whole lot of distance between "science can explain everything" (which I reject) and "science can't explain anything" (which I also reject).

Sure.

The sameness-in-difference principle of philosophy gives us a priori knowledge that a purely Positivistic Universe is impossible.  

From Wikipedia:


The sameness-in-difference is simple proof that no two relational entities can be absolutely different from each other; we don't need science or empirical data to figure this out.  Any attempt to assert an absolute difference invokes similarity (i.e. both entities are identical in that they share a differential relationship).

Consequently, a Positivistic Universe is impossible.  This is because a Positivistic Universe assumes that we, the subjects observing the 'objective' Universe, have no bearing on defining what the Universe is.  This is false.  You can't just talk about what the Universe would be/is like if you entirely remove all subjective information from it.  The Universe cannot be wholly defined without that information.  This is (one reason) why it is impossible for any scientific theory to be comprehensive-enough to explain everything.

Comeon. It isn't 42 pages.
It's just plain old 42, the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

42 pages and not a single mention of this supposed scientific proof. Can someone please link to the paper? What journal was it published in? Where are the data, the methodology, the abstract?

Come on guys, this is by far the greatest discovery in all of science. But for some reason none of the scientific websites are talking about it.

To be an investigative scientist, you have to have imagination. The problem comes about when you let you imagination cloud your interpretation.

Um, I guess if you want to take mountains of evidence from every imaginable relevant field and then discredit it with a wave of your hand as "imagination" then you have every right to do so.  The more you do this the more difficult it is to treat you as if you're serious.

If you really want to know more, all you have to do is point that web-browser of yours at the wikipedia series on ancient egypt.  There is literally mountains of evidence for dating egyptian kings/queens/dynasties.

More and more you're starting to seem like a kid with his hands on his ears and his eyes shut tight saying "no,no,no,no,no" to blockout any sound.  If that's the way you live, then you probably can stay inside this world of yours for a pretty long time.  However, I really think you're shutting yourself off from the most fascinating and intersting facts about our world.

What you really want is freedom; you are a creator, not a regurgitator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRucM7Te3Gk&feature=youtu.be

The debate about Rupert Sheldrake’s talk - http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/19/the-debate-about-rupert-sheldrakes-talk/ . 

Why is it that the gravitational constant cannot change over time?

I guess you haven't heard Sheldrake's controversial TED talk.

There's only ONE reason why people think that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It's because some scientists who haven't been there then have said so, over and over until people believe it from hearing it so often.

Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.

Wait a minute, how can it be that both "nobody was there" and that "witneses recounted what they witnessed"?

Are you going to tell me next that these bible dudes have explained to you about the "time dimension"?

Seriously, try that free yale course by Christine Hayes on OT.  It's really good.  She doesn't hate the bible, she loves it AND she explains the context of each of the OT books.  It's a wonderful lecture series (and it's on YouTube).  You might be surprised that the "electromagnetic spectrum" never comes up!

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi

As to what people witnessed, there amazing artifacts from ancient Egyptian kings dating back to about 6000 years ago.  So, in your theory, I guess some o fthose people were around before the Earth was created?

Laugh at your own imagination. Nobody was there then. Nobody knows. The Bible is witnesses recounting what they witnessed, not scientists recounting things they didn't witness.

The joint, would you go ahead and lay out that 1000s-of-years-old proof for us please?