Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 485. (Read 845477 times)
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.
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.
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).
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).
Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method. One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe. This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years.
The joint, would you go ahead and lay out that 1000s-of-years-old proof for us please?
Sure.
The sameness-in-difference principle of philosophy gives us a priori knowledge that a purely Positivistic Universe is impossible.
From Wikipedia:
Quote
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.
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.
To be an investigative scientist, you have to have imagination. The problem comes about when you let you imagination cloud your interpretation.
Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.
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.
Ultimately,
It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
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/ .
I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.
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.
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.
Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".
For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.
Quote
And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.
Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.
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.
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?
Scientists have far greater imaginations than anyone who can give a reason, like Egypt being around 6,000 years ago.
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.
Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".
For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.
Quote
And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.
Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.
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.
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?
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.
Lol @ "the beginning 6000 years ago".
For a guy who loves the bible so much, you seem to know suprisingly little about the origin of the Old testament. I recommend you check out "The Old Testament with Christine Hayes" on YaleCourses on YouTube. It's entirely free and you can learn a whole lot about this artifact which you hold so dear.
Quote
And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.
Wow, that second paragraphy displays an almost shocking level of ignorance of basic physics! If the "electromagnetic spectrum" and the "time dimension" were different I guess you may as well say that gravity and strong/weak nuclear forces were different too. Sounds to me like for you, this pre "Great Flood" era actualy belonged to a different universe.
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.
Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method. One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe. This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years.
The joint, would you go ahead and lay out that 1000s-of-years-old proof for us please?
On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.
The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.
You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science. Don't you understand that? Your house is built on a foundation of cards.
You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.
Doesn't change the point I just made. Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot. Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.
I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.
You say "people" like you say "scientists." What I mean is, you can find loads of people who believe all different kinds of things, just like you can find many scientists who understand the same evidence in many different ways.
How does that answers to the fact that you base your feelings off a 2000 years book?
The guys back then would have thought the smartphone I'm writing this post on is godly if they have had any chance to see it.
The book is not entirely 2000 years old. The first two chapters of in may go all the way back to the beginning, 6000 years ago. If not that far, then they were probably written by Abraham from the verbal tradition that had been passed down. In addition, the first 5 books go back 3500.
And don't pick on the verbal tradition. Those guys had far better memory than we do. And if you say the earth is more than 6000 years old, we don't know that, because the whole time dimension was different before the Great Flood, and the electromagnetic spectrum acted differently, as well.
I know I keep butting in, but there is proof of the first rite of initiation held in the giza pyramid dated 64.000 yeras ago, aka the rite of mithras. This proves why science cant explain with a satisfactory answer, how to move stones not just the size of stonehenge, but the plethora of megalithic structures all over the world.
There is a record of caves in easter island with the ancient human's remains packed in so tightly, it is said that they got in that position by choice whilst still alive, such is the positioning of the bodies. Akin to the stones of the pyramid, the bodies were so tightly packed, they filled the tiniest of space, so much were they pertified of what they were trying to escape.
This makes the age of the bible and trying to figure out that books age and or origins a joke.
Immanuel Velikovsky - Bonds of the Past.avi
Like I said, the angels and demons are either elemental celestial beings/entities or cardinal points..
I myself remember the dreams of running from fireballs falling from the skies..
Considering how many tunes in the guise of books there are in the world, I think we'd be pretty bloody stupid to believe in just one, hence the re-creation by adaption, which is irelevant, for all have been tampered with by the victors of ages responsible for changing said book..
When I said I follow star maps? I was'nt kiddin
On the face of it, I disagree that "the thread of salvation through the Messiah runs throughout the whole" of the Bible. I found that the Dead Sea Scrolls support my position:
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
The messiah, according to Jewish [and early Christian] belief, was not a God that would deliver his people by clearing their way to heaven. The messiah was to be an empowered King who would destroy the enemies of the Jews and regain their Holy Land.
Yet the Messiah was for everyone who believed. So how would an earthly kingship be available to those who had passed already? People want it now. So, they misinterpret a lot.
The Revelation in the Bible sets it out rather plainly in some ways. The book of Hebrews is another that helps. St. Paul's writings suggest that we don't know what form we are going to take in Heaven.
You know, you base everything off a book that was written when people knew squat about science. Don't you understand that? Your house is built on a foundation of cards.
You know? The Bosnian pyramids show that the people of Atlantis knew a whole lot more about science than we give them credit for. And some of their knowledge was so different from ours that we are just beginning to relearn it.
Doesn't change the point I just made. Everything you believe, and all your arguments, are based off a book that was written when people thought the sun raced across the sky on a chariot. Those wrong beliefs and ideals are the bible.
I'd have more respect for you people if you had any kind of new evidence in the last 2,000 years.
Ironically, the scientific method is based upon assumptions that are a priori invalid, and the knowledge of the invalidity of these assumptions was known before the existence of the scientific method. One such assumption is the assertion of a Positivistic Universe. This assumption has been known to be provably wrong for thousands of years.
Supernatural is a term used to explain what the science still can not explain. Only closed minded people think science can explain everything and can not think outside the box.
Science can explain everything. Look at all that was unknown when god was first invented. Soon, science will explain everything.
Unfortunately, this is impossible. The problem of inductive reasoning is very real and will always set a limit of knowledge beyond which the scientific method is forever unable to explore.
Jump to: