Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 483. (Read 845477 times)

legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 18, 2014, 02:22:58 PM
The evidence for God is great. The fact that most of people in the world believe in God or a god, is in itself great evidence. The machine quality of the universe suggests a Maker.

Most people in the world believed the world was flat. That didn't turn out to be great evidence.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
September 18, 2014, 02:01:56 PM
I don't believe in GOD because the consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones , consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources is exactly zero.

See? That's the trick, isn't it?

If we knew all about God, we wouldn't have to believe. Consider your wife (or anybody or anything that you know exists). Do you believe she exists? Maybe. But more than believing, you KNOW she exists.

If the evidence proved God existed, then you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW. But since ALL religion revolves around the idea of believing, there really isn't going to be any proof for God. If there were proof, you wouldn't have to believe. You would KNOW.

The evidence for God is great. The fact that most of people in the world believe in God or a god, is in itself great evidence. The machine quality of the universe suggests a Maker.

As for consistency, you won't find one person in the whole world who is consistent with yourself. Even your closest, most trusted friend, is at least slightly inconsistent with you.

The point? Don't give up on God. Why not? There will come a time that He will reveal Himself to you and all people. And the thing that He will consider important will be how and how much you believed in Him, here, before He revealed Himself, before the time that you won't have to believe anymore, because you will KNOW.

Smiley
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
September 18, 2014, 12:45:30 PM
I don't believe in GOD because the consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones , consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources is exactly zero.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 250
September 18, 2014, 12:26:11 PM
wasnt there a kid movie that experiences he died but comes back to life.

Its based on a supposedly a true story of his experience, and re-tells his family.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
September 18, 2014, 11:54:03 AM
No gods, no masters!

No masters.
Except the taxman, right?
 Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
September 18, 2014, 11:17:17 AM
10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God

The Scientist Who Dug into Hell in Siberia and Recorded the Cries of Damned Souls (1989)

The Neuroscientist Who Claimed that Heaven Exists After Being in a Week-Long Coma (2008)

The Chemistry Student Who Demostrated that Heaven and Hell Exist

The Professor of Medicine Who Claimed to Have Found Sculptures Made by God Himself (1725)

Pascal's Wager: God Is, or He Is Not. You Must Wager (17th century)

Euler's Formula to Explain God's Existence (18th century)

The Mathematician Who Developed the Theorem of God (1931)

The Scientist Who Finds No Conflict Between Science and Religious Faith (2007)

The Computer Scientists Who Allegedly Proved God Exists (2013)

The Neurologist Who Claimed that Near-Death Experiences Actually Can Happen (2013)

Here's an explanation for all of these:

http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx

All of these were lies and hoaxes! And if there is a god, whoever keeps reposting these lies is going to hell.
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
September 18, 2014, 06:52:44 AM
10 Scientists Who Claim to Have Proof about the Existence of God

The Scientist Who Dug into Hell in Siberia and Recorded the Cries of Damned Souls (1989)


The Neuroscientist Who Claimed that Heaven Exists After Being in a Week-Long Coma (2008)


The Chemistry Student Who Demostrated that Heaven and Hell Exist


The Professor of Medicine Who Claimed to Have Found Sculptures Made by God Himself (1725)


Pascal's Wager: God Is, or He Is Not. You Must Wager (17th century)


Euler's Formula to Explain God's Existence (18th century)


The Mathematician Who Developed the Theorem of God (1931)

The Scientist Who Finds No Conflict Between Science and Religious Faith (2007)


The Computer Scientists Who Allegedly Proved God Exists (2013)

The Neurologist Who Claimed that Near-Death Experiences Actually Can Happen (2013)
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
September 18, 2014, 06:48:39 AM
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.

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.

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.

There are people on this board who have declared that homosexuality means there is something biologically wrong with the people saying they are homosexual, there are people who have demanded that others be thrown into jail for a simple prank on a Jesus statue, not to mention the blatant racism and xenophobia here. I've actually been pretty diplomatic in the fact that I haven't gone into the stuff about religion that truly reviles me yet believe it or not.

Interestingly enough though, I have very little against Buddhists and Sun Worshippers because as far as I know these guys are relatively harmless, even Satanists are more peaceful than the likes of a lot of mainstream religions I've seen. Also, I'd be very interested in discovering what's so 'wrong' about me considering the fact that I when it comes to physical contact with people I always do my best to commit to self-defence and defence of others when religious fanatics go batshit insane at the very mention of evolution etc. like they have in this thread.

Speaking of which, if you guys seriously don't believe in science, then fuck off to a street corner and start preaching there instead of using your mobile phones and the internet to preach, because guess what? It's those scientific advancements that you railed against so much that are actually responsible for creating the stuff that you rage on so regularly. To me, it doesn't matter whether your god exists or not, what matters is he is a violent scumbag and I know that because of the people who follow him.

No gods, no masters!
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
September 18, 2014, 04:31:22 AM
I believe in God. So I have no need of any scientific proof.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
September 18, 2014, 02:25:30 AM
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).

I defined a priori because it isn't a commonly known term, and because it reminds us that empirical knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge.

You can Google "sameness in difference" and you'll get a ton of websites to choose from.  What I don't know is the source origin, but certainly Plato and other philosophers have referenced the idea.  

The proof is there and it's good enough.  It's also very simple, and this is fine.  Certain logical truths can prevent us from a futile empirical search for something we already know is impossible.  For example, we know that it's impossible to empirically find something that isn't itself because of the law of identity (e.g. A = A).  So, we know that we can stop our search for something that isn't itself before we even get started looking for it.  Similarly, the sameness in difference principle shows us that we can never formulate a truly comprehensive theory of anything without also considering the ways that subjective/observer information helps to define everything.  
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
September 18, 2014, 02:21:10 AM
(There is a more complete explanation of the fundamental tendency in one of my previous posts. Review it for more information specific about the tendency.)

Within entropism, there is a sort of "fundamental tendency" (that is, a critical tendency from which everything* hails). This tendency is reasoned, from solipsism, to be an absolute tendency to become less orderly.

Entropy manifests itself within beasts as at least Siddhartha's Five Sufferings: birth, aging, illness, death, and parting. What you referred to as being "man's heritage" stands in direct opposition to these sufferings and, therefore, in direct opposition of that tendency whereby they are. (For this, it is said to be "rebellion" there-against.)




* The way this is used is atypical. Review entropism's fundamental tendency to help ensure comprehension.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
September 18, 2014, 02:03:01 AM
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!
There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.
See the updated post.
I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.
I'm an entropist claiming "man's heritage" rebellion against the fundamental tendency.

Hmmmm, interesting; could you say some more about this?
Where is it all headed?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
September 18, 2014, 01:36:07 AM

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  Smiley
What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture. This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he aspires to be.

(In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")

Who are you to say what angels can or cannot do?
Where is your reasoning?
You are going to sit here and tell us what God is aspiring to be?
I do not think you know the half of it.
(That post has been updated.)

Within his Book of Job, even his satan had to request of him permission to proceed about trying Job.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
September 18, 2014, 01:32:26 AM

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  Smiley
What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture. This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he aspires to be.

(In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")

Who are you to say what angels can or cannot do?
Where is your reasoning?
You are going to sit here and tell us what God is aspiring to be?
I do not think you know the half of it.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
September 18, 2014, 01:25:19 AM

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  Smiley
What was meant is that YHWH is necessarily entropy anemic: his angels may make no determination without him, and his humans may determine but within the confines of nature and nurture.

This anemia is necessary for his being that constant god he is. (In truth, though we may say, "I am one who were," he may say, "I am who am.")
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Knowledge could but approximate existence.
September 18, 2014, 01:13:46 AM
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!
There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.
See the updated post.
I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.
I'm an entropist claiming "man's heritage" rebellion against the fundamental tendency.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
September 18, 2014, 12:59:26 AM
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Man's humanness did not emerge by refusing Man's animal heritage, but upon an extension of what it is.

If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. Man is hardly likely to render arbitrary determinations upon himself!
There is a nature beyond the animal: the hole. (In truth, black hole exemplify being here.)

Perhaps, but Man's humanness is an extension of his animal heritage; it is not an extension of a hole.
See the updated post.
I will quote at length from "The Nature of Personal Reality"; the above bold quote is from the same book:

The exquisite, precise and concentrated focus of your conscious mind is quite necessary in physical life. It is because of this highly selective quality that you can "tune into" the particular range of activity that is physical.

In their own way, animals also possess this selective consciousness. They also focus their attention in very specific directions, perceiving from a vast general field of perception stimuli that is "recognized" and accepted in an organized manner.

When a man or a woman feels no connection between personal reality and experience and the surrounding world, then s/he loses even an animal's sense of pure competence and belonging.

Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels.

Yes, indeed.

In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specializations of body any longer, but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creaturehood.

Your beliefs form your reality, shaping your life and all of its conditions.

Therefore, it is your moral nihilism that will shape your reality, not the other way around. The animals are not nihilists, nor does man have a need for such an inner structure. Moral nihilism appears to be a rebellion against man's heritage.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
September 18, 2014, 12:58:42 AM

Look at my signature below.

Which programming language is that? Or are you AI?  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
September 18, 2014, 12:46:03 AM
One can render determinations about others out of moral nihilism, that is, render wholly arbitrary determinations upon them.

Considering that, how is "religion" necessary?

There are several things that are virtually necessary in life for a healthy person to live. Everyone needs air to breathe, water to drink (or at least to be absorbed through the food he/she eats), and food. In certain climates, people need clothing and shelter.

Since a person isn't completely full of all possible experience, he is going to find things in life that will be different than what he expected. Because of this, people live by faith, faith in nature, faith in their experiences, and if they understand about God, faith in God.

In its simplest form, religion is only a combining of faith and experience. Religion is how one acts based on what he believes, which is based on his imperfect and incomplete experience. His religion changes slightly with each new experience. And nobody's personal religion is exactly the same as that of anybody else. However, because ALL people have the same, basic needs in life, each person's religion is similar to that of every other person, down deep, at the core of their being.

Smiley
What you term "health," your YHWH, he terms "2."

At our core, you and I, we have the same basic needs in life: air, water, food, clothing, shelter. Yet our experiences and training are different enough that I haven't been able to determine what you mean by what you say.

Smiley
Jump to: