Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 486. (Read 845654 times)

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.



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.

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.

Oh come on. Almost everything you say is a joke. So why can't I joke a little?  

Solar cell + Airplane mode

That's not the point anyway. Are you really so stupid you don't see the point?

And we remember all the things that we didn't miss? I must have been really ignorant last time. 'Cause I don't remember any of it. And the way some people in this thread think I am "dumb" this time, there probably won't be much for me to remember next time, either.

Smartphone wouldn't have worked 200 years ago. No way to charge the battery, and no cell towers. 

Actually, God gave man freedom in this universe. Not only that, but He made man His greatest creation. Then man turned his back on God, thereby creating entropy in God's universe. Why should God put more energy into something that man is going to destroy through entropy anyway?

God's plan is, instead of putting more energy into this universe, save man out of it. Make a new universe where man can't introduce entropy, and put man in there. Then, destroy the old universe in the lake of fire to get His energies back out of it.

please forgive me, but masonic literature is not what I would call any kind of proof, and since most ref's are from either the bible or from the 50's onwards, I can only assume they are of that kind of folks who would say anything to distract people from THAT truth. It's like, is Jesus God, or is God, God? 'Cause as I see it, Jesus is a human, and cant possibly have created that which went before he, Jesus, was born, fair enough he may be the son of god, but the world is much older.. after at least 62 thousand years after the first rite of initiation held in the pyramid of gizeh.

I do believe we, in a way, are reborn until we learn whatever it is we missed in the previous 'chance', or for whatever reason that escapes me at the moment - Post Cxx Annos Patebo.

We shall return..

What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice.

The case for the scientific method should itself be "scientific" and not merely rhetorical.

Unfortunately, the argument may not look as good to the unconvinced as it does to the believer.

Vod apparently does not realize that the repeated promises of benefits yet to come, with no likelihood that those promises will be fulfilled, can only produce a widespread cynicism about the claims for the scientific method.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

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

Paired with the fact that religious cannon is always selected to match the favor of the organized religion it supports, hence the book of enoch is not included in the bible. 

Like an ant on a balloon who only sees the balloon as a flat surface to walk on - we will always be limited in perspective through our nanosecond of history on the geological timescale and limits on interplanetary travel, how could we expect to know what to observe elsewhere.  I think that if humans started seeing other planets and alien cultures, they would use those observations to adjust their own attitudes and perspectives on 'supernatural' and 'religion'

Even 200 years ago a smartphone would have seemed godly

That link wasn't working in my browser.

However, I also want to say that while:
  1. I don't believe in any God and
  2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)

I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything.  As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.

Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification.  Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death.  Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.

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.

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

It is your ad-hominem; you justify yours first. 

And That is an ad-hominem attack, anything else?

Update: That guy was a total loon, and has been reincarnated as Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, seriously.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Barrett)

You just posted that to fill in a type of emotional void you are experiencing.

God exists - in your head only.

People 'need' God or a type of 'relation to something greater' to fill in a type of emotional void they are experiencing - they do it to justify that 'their loved ones' aren't gone and that 'we must certainly see them again too when we die!', which is naive and gullible - your personality and traits are predetermined from your environment and your genetic material - ergo you come back every century or so, and for that matter you aren't completely YOU, you're just a reset consciousness that is turned back on through the process of meiosis    

Stop attributing favorable events and circumstances of chance to being a miracle - cause you talking out loud to  yourself while holding your hands to a multidimensional being really solves everything.... right???


concept of reincarnation is true
concept of greater beings 'watching over us' without showing or giving any evidence of their own efforts toward self preservation is false


Entrophy = wins
Equilibrium = wins

Thus, Omnipresence implies that God is simply all forms of matter and lack thereof
Thus, Omnipotence implies that God cannot exist because then said God also has all knowledge of outcomes from not being present.  


Serendipitous results without a clearly defined experiment and control group - and this is based on the efforts of one guy, I mean he could have flubbed his findings to make his experiment seem bigger than it was (reality was inconclusive and he lied saying they were correlated)  (I'm really going out on a limb with this guess as I didn't bother reading the PDF yet)  Will give feedback on it soon.

These guys are getting really concrete:

http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.html

Mainstream scientific consensus is not powerful enough to explain the evidence for survival:


Is mainstream science going to give us any information at all on this subject? I challenge you to explain the evidence using consensus theories.

Without timely response, it is affirmed that empirical science CANNOT explain everything.