Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 511. (Read 845437 times)

full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 106
August 29, 2014, 06:39:18 PM
Look, if scientists and researchers had more than a rudimentary understanding of how things work, they would have been able to double and triple our lifespan long ago.

Let's hope not. We are overpopulated as it is.

I predict within 40 years it will cost ~1BTC to have a neural scan such that your conscious mind can be entirely transferred into a simulated environment.

So instead of graveyards there will be server racks, the deceased could still interact with the general web so continue posting on worldly forums from the "next life"
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 106
August 29, 2014, 06:33:27 PM
we are creation of alien genetic engineering
so in a sense there is a "god"

but not to the point that most world religions would like you to believe

Possibly,

I also think it's possible that we exist as conscious code within a simulation.

I guess this would make the original system programmer/s "god/s"

And what of the original programmers? Do they exist as a simulation also? Maybe it's simulations all the way down?

And will we crack the engineering problem of simulating conscious entities that themselves can exist within a simulation?
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
August 29, 2014, 06:24:02 PM
This thread is diamonds
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 06:10:14 PM
we are creation of alien genetic engineering
so in a sense there is a "god"

but not to the point that most world religions would like you to believe

The problem with this is, what was the god that engineered the aliens? And what was the god that engineered that god? And how far back does this go? To infinity? Aliens being engineered by other aliens who were engineered by still other aliens. Where would it all start?

Since there is no CLEAR evidence that this is what happened, and since we don't have any CLEAR evidence of what happened at all, personally, I agree with the written record of the witnesses to the things that happened as they watched them happen in their lifetimes. I agree with the Bible witnesses. Along with this, I agree with the acceptable idea of the universe being a machine, that had to have a machine maker.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 06:03:59 PM
God is a fantasy. There's no one person controlling everything. The cosmos is everything in existence and it functions all on it's own. I bow to no god and no man. I simply exist in reality.

God is not a person.  God is all people.  You're thinking in terms of humanly logic.  God is not a being, god is everything that exists.  The totality of existence, that which is the universe.


To ignore the existence of something, you must first acknowledge it's existence.

I agree that God is existent in all people. But He also is an identity of His own, much broader that the combined entities that people are. 

Smiley

I'm just saying that god is not one singular personified being.  The highest state of god is an infinitely bright singular point of white light and infinite love, as all frequencies together create a white light.  I know this because I have seen it, I have felt it and I have became it.

This is the point we might have disagreement on, if we took the time to nail it down. I am saying that God IS a personified being, separate from people, while at the same time being existent, as TRUE God, inside of and as all people. How can this be? I don't have a clue. Sounds almost impossible. Yet this is, if explained and understood correctly, what I believe.

Smiley
full member
Activity: 234
Merit: 100
August 29, 2014, 06:00:58 PM
we are creation of alien genetic engineering
so in a sense there is a "god"

but not to the point that most world religions would like you to believe
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
August 29, 2014, 05:58:10 PM
God is a fantasy. There's no one person controlling everything. The cosmos is everything in existence and it functions all on it's own. I bow to no god and no man. I simply exist in reality.

God is not a person.  God is all people.  You're thinking in terms of humanly logic.  God is not a being, god is everything that exists.  The totality of existence, that which is the universe.


To ignore the existence of something, you must first acknowledge it's existence.

I agree that God is existent in all people. But He also is an identity of His own, much broader that the combined entities that people are. 

Smiley

I'm just saying that god is not one singular personified being.  The highest state of god is an infinitely bright singular point of white light and infinite love, as all frequencies together create a white light.  I know this because I have seen it, I have felt it and I have became it.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 05:54:47 PM
God is a fantasy. There's no one person controlling everything. The cosmos is everything in existence and it functions all on it's own. I bow to no god and no man. I simply exist in reality.

God is not a person.  God is all people.  You're thinking in terms of humanly logic.  God is not a being, god is everything that exists.  The totality of existence, that which is the universe.


To ignore the existence of something, you must first acknowledge it's existence.

I agree that God is existent in all people. But He also is an identity of His own, much broader that the combined entities that people are. 

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
August 29, 2014, 05:51:44 PM
God is a fantasy. There's no one person controlling everything. The cosmos is everything in existence and it functions all on it's own. I bow to no god and no man. I simply exist in reality.

God is not a person.  God is all people.  You're thinking in terms of humanly logic.  God is not a being, god is everything that exists.  The totality of existence, that which is the universe.


To ignore the existence of something, you must first acknowledge it's existence.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 05:38:14 PM
Look, if scientists and researchers had more than a rudimentary understanding of how things work, they would have been able to double and triple our lifespan long ago. So, how can they, from a scientific standpoint, have any kind of an inkling whatsoever, about things that happened billions of years ago, or even that something like billions of years exists at all? They can't and don't. There are too many variables that they don't know about, to even have an idea as to the age of the earth.

How do we know that there are too many variables? We know it because they are looking at the variables right here among us in LIFE. And even though they can examine those variables of life that are right here among us, they still can't figure out how to make people live twice as long - say, to 200 years - to say nothing about being able to DO it. So, why do they think that they can even guess what might have happened way of over 5,000 years ago, in areas that they absolutely can't examine, because those areas are so remote to them, removed from them in time and space?

When they can extend your life to, say, 500 years old, then you can start to believe that maybe they have enough smarts that they can tell how old the earth is, beyond examining the pottery which shows that the oldest reliable records only go back 5,000 years, maybe.

Think and wake up.

Smiley



See this? This is exactly why old earth science and evolution are a religion. People want to believe old earth science and evolution rather than examining something that makes logical, scientific sense.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 05:35:45 PM
Okay. Look at it like this. Imagine that some genius electronics engineer developed a time viewer, where he could look back 100,000 years. And he started showing people, over his time viewer, what it looked like when dinosaurs walked the earth. Do we believe what he is showing us? How can we tell, and when can we tell, that he might have something that is reliable?

Here's when. It's only when his time viewer can trace the history from 1 minute ago, and then 10 minutes ago, and then an hour, and then a day, week, month, year, etc., showing all the things that are happening right now, in our life time, where we can trace it back to the dinosaurs, viewing everything in between if we so desire. Only THEN might we start to believe that he has TRULY developed a time viewer that can show us the past, and that the past is as many years old as scientists have suggested.

The point is, ancient pottery, and old geological features, only suggest things. They aren't a time viewer that is clear enough to make any certain estimates of time and the timeline. There are too many variables that we don't know about, that just might play a much larger role in our understanding of how old things really are.

It is GOOD that scientists make their educated guesses; it helps them to have a point to work from. But also, let them say it exactly the way it is, that they just don't know scientifically what was going on beyond about 5,000 years ago, and that their educated guesses, ARE ONLY EDUCATED GUESSES. They really don't know.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015
August 29, 2014, 05:32:52 PM
Look, if scientists and researchers had more than a rudimentary understanding of how things work, they would have been able to double and triple our lifespan long ago.

Let's hope not. We are overpopulated as it is.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
August 29, 2014, 05:26:59 PM
Look, if scientists and researchers had more than a rudimentary understanding of how things work, they would have been able to double and triple our lifespan long ago. So, how can they, from a scientific standpoint, have any kind of an inkling whatsoever, about things that happened billions of years ago, or even that something like billions of years exists at all? They can't and don't. There are too many variables that they don't know about, to even have an idea as to the age of the earth.

How do we know that there are too many variables? We know it because they are looking at the variables right here among us in LIFE. And even though they can examine those variables of life that are right here among us, they still can't figure out how to make people live twice as long - say, to 200 years - to say nothing about being able to DO it. So, why do they think that they can even guess what might have happened way of over 5,000 years ago, in areas that they absolutely can't examine, because those areas are so remote to them, removed from them in time and space?

When they can extend your life to, say, 500 years old, then you can start to believe that maybe they have enough smarts that they can tell how old the earth is, beyond examining the pottery which shows that the oldest reliable records only go back 5,000 years, maybe.

Think and wake up.

Smiley

legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 05:17:04 PM
Look, if scientists and researchers had more than a rudimentary understanding of how things work, they would have been able to double and triple our lifespan long ago. So, how can they, from a scientific standpoint, have any kind of an inkling whatsoever, about things that happened billions of years ago, or even that something like billions of years exists at all? They can't and don't. There are too many variables that they don't know about, to even have an idea as to the age of the earth.

How do we know that there are too many variables? We know it because they are looking at the variables right here among us in LIFE. And even though they can examine those variables of life that are right here among us, they still can't figure out how to make people live twice as long - say, to 200 years - to say nothing about being able to DO it. So, why do they think that they can even guess what might have happened way of over 5,000 years ago, in areas that they absolutely can't examine, because those areas are so remote to them, removed from them in time and space?

When they can extend your life to, say, 500 years old, then you can start to believe that maybe they have enough smarts that they can tell how old the earth is, beyond examining the pottery which shows that the oldest reliable records only go back 5,000 years, maybe.

Think and wake up.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
August 29, 2014, 05:01:35 PM
Oh, this is so funny. Not the serious points. Rather the fact that people want to believe certain things that seem to be impossible to others, yet they are unwilling to recognize that some of the things that they believe are considered to be impossible by those same others.

For example, one person says, it is impossible for there to be a living angel inside the sun. Another says that it is impossible for evolution to have happened.

If we want to start to reconcile our "beliefs," all of us first need to recognize that there is only ONE reason why life and the earth is possible. That reason is, simply, that we exist. We are here. At least it feels like it and looks like it.

One of the most important things that we need to realize if we want to move on to an understanding of ourselves and the universe is, it is utterly impossible for life, and nature on the earth, and even the whole universe, to exist, according to anything that we know or understand, except that we do exist, and it all exists. Without recognizing this, all the rest of scientific investigation is meaningless, except that it moves us in the direction of understanding how impossible this universe is. That's the start towards understanding.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
August 29, 2014, 04:35:42 PM

 do you think that when the Sun creates one deuterium atom from two hydrogen atoms, then god is the explanation?

I don't know that the sun does that, but if the sun does it, the process was originally created by God.

If you mean, does God involve Himself directly with each conversion, I don't know how much He has set the process on automatic where He doesn't have to involve Himself with it directly.

If you mean that deuterium can be made from hydrogen that ISN'T heavy hydrogen, I have never heard of that happening. Simply don't know.

Why do you want to know what I think about this? Or were you talking to someone else, and I answered out of turn?

We don't know as much about the sun as we think we do. The Revelation talks about an angel who is powerful enough that he/she/it is standing in the sun.

Smiley


Okay wait wait wait...please tell me you are trolling...PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE just fess up.  There is no way any human on earth believes a god damned angel lives in sun? Belief in god, that's one thing, belief in an angel in the sun!? That must mean that ever star in our universe has an angel just sitting around doing jackshit inside of stars.   Do you even realize that our sun is just another star? And not even a very special one at that, it's below average.

OH GOD PLEASE BE A TROLL!

Nah man, people actually believe there's 300000000000000000000000 angels in the universe (that's the actual number of stars we've estimated in the observable universe). People are absolutely insane.

Anyway, you're all going to BlahVonShorgonNieHa (my religion's version of hell, because you worship a false god). Here's my proof of the religion:



Stop spreading propaganda



legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
August 29, 2014, 02:52:04 PM

 do you think that when the Sun creates one deuterium atom from two hydrogen atoms, then god is the explanation?

I don't know that the sun does that, but if the sun does it, the process was originally created by God.

If you mean, does God involve Himself directly with each conversion, I don't know how much He has set the process on automatic where He doesn't have to involve Himself with it directly.

If you mean that deuterium can be made from hydrogen that ISN'T heavy hydrogen, I have never heard of that happening. Simply don't know.

Why do you want to know what I think about this? Or were you talking to someone else, and I answered out of turn?

We don't know as much about the sun as we think we do. The Revelation talks about an angel who is powerful enough that he/she/it is standing in the sun.

Smiley


Okay wait wait wait...please tell me you are trolling...PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE just fess up.  There is no way any human on earth believes a god damned angel lives in sun? Belief in god, that's one thing, belief in an angel in the sun!? That must mean that ever star in our universe has an angel just sitting around doing jackshit inside of stars.   Do you even realize that our sun is just another star? And not even a very special one at that, it's below average.

OH GOD PLEASE BE A TROLL!

Nah man, people actually believe there's 300000000000000000000000 angels in the universe (that's the actual number of stars we've estimated in the observable universe). People are absolutely insane.

Anyway, you're all going to BlahVonShorgonNieHa (my religion's version of hell, because you worship a false god). Here's my proof of the religion:

newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
August 29, 2014, 10:22:04 AM
Just admit we cant prove or disprove such thing,and move on.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
August 29, 2014, 09:52:10 AM

 do you think that when the Sun creates one deuterium atom from two hydrogen atoms, then god is the explanation?

I don't know that the sun does that, but if the sun does it, the process was originally created by God.

If you mean, does God involve Himself directly with each conversion, I don't know how much He has set the process on automatic where He doesn't have to involve Himself with it directly.

If you mean that deuterium can be made from hydrogen that ISN'T heavy hydrogen, I have never heard of that happening. Simply don't know.

Why do you want to know what I think about this? Or were you talking to someone else, and I answered out of turn?

We don't know as much about the sun as we think we do. The Revelation talks about an angel who is powerful enough that he/she/it is standing in the sun.

Smiley


Okay wait wait wait...please tell me you are trolling...PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE just fess up.  There is no way any human on earth believes a god damned angel lives in sun? Belief in god, that's one thing, belief in an angel in the sun!? That must mean that ever star in our universe has an angel just sitting around doing jackshit inside of stars.   Do you even realize that our sun is just another star? And not even a very special one at that, it's below average.

OH GOD PLEASE BE A TROLL!
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
August 29, 2014, 09:49:28 AM
There simply can't exist a proof that god exists! It just doesn't work that way. God can only exist for people who believe he/she/it does. All those 'scientific' proofs are bogus, if you ask me!

Stop right now, and look at the wall. No, seriously, stop what you are doing and look at the wall. I don't know if your wall is papered with wallpaper, or if you have paneling, or if it is simply painted. But whatever it is, how do you know that there is anything behind/beyond the surface of the wall?

You might have seen the wall built. You might have only tapped the wall with your knuckles, and it felt solid. You might have even put your fist through that wall at one time or another. But how do you know for a fact that there is anything behind/beyond the surface of that wall right now? For all we know, observing the substance behind the surface of the wall is the thing that brings that substance into existence, and that it really wasn't there before we brought it into existence through some form of observation.

The point is, how much evidence do you have to see in nature before you can postulate within yourself that God must indeed exist? EVERYTHING in life exists partially by faith. Nature seems to show that God exists. The surface of the wall seems to indicate that there is some kind of solidity behind the surface. But until you stand face to face with whatever, you have to live, at least a little, in faith.

ALL people live in faith many different ways throughout their whole lives. Meeting God in person is the only pure proof for His existence. But the evidence that He exists is great, far greater than the constant babbling of the scientists that evolution exists. In their babbling they live in faith just like everyone else.

Smiley

BADecker you are falling under the burden of proof fallacy.

First, there is only one piece of evidence that the CHRISTIAN god exists. You must also consider there is the same evidence, and even more actually, for other gods that came long before the word "GOD" was ever used by anyone in the 4.54 BILLION years the earth has been in existence.  BUT the most important thing in all of this is that you must prove your god is real, it is not the job of the non-believer to prove it. Your questions of the existence of things that are not currently being observed are non-sensical and go against everything we know to be true.

This universe we live in is likely to be a simulation, but whether it is or it isn't, we must go with the laws of physics that we can observe until we are able to observe more.  Just because you can't be omnipotent and obverse all structures in the universe at all times, doesn't mean that you can just say the universe doesn't work the way that we believe it does to the best of our knowledge. Stop living with what was written down in a single book by people who literally never met jesus, and didn't start writing it 30 years after he died. What can you write about from 30 years ago? Were you even alive? You have your head in the sand my friend, please remove it and join us in the ways of scientific thinking which you are currently helping to hold us back from as a civilization.

As I have said several times, and you can prove it to yourself through examination of the foundational scientific writings, the base for ALL understanding that the earth is more than about 25,000 years max, is in ifs and maybes. Check the books written by the scientists who have done that calculations. The say things like, "From this we can surmise that the age of the earth is ... ." The word "surmise" has to do with making an educated guess. The evidence that they use can be interpreted in ways different than the things that they say... even ways that show a young earth.

On the other hand, the more we learn about the activity of the earth and the universe, the more we see an ultra-complex machine. What we don't see is any kind of method that explains how this machine was made. ALL examination of the machine itself shows ONLY a slowing down, decaying, erosion, like a pendulum gradually going to bottom dead center. The science books that talk about these things explain it in this way.

The idea of evolution entirely contradicts the things that we see happening in nature. Evolution is a guesswork idea that flies in the face of the machinery of the universe gradually wearing down. Evolution says things increase in complexity. It is standard science that things wear out and wear down. There is nothing that shows the opposite. There is no evolution.

Machinery is built by a machine maker. The more complex the machinery, the more complex that machine maker. Any one of you, stand there and call a grain of sand into existence out of nothing. Nobody can do it, yet the stuff is here, and the so-called scientific methods suggested for where the stuff comes from are pure guesses. The evidence is overwhelmingly for a God, and a very powerful One.

Smiley


Okay as much as I want to try to continue to debate with you over this, I can't.  You know why I can't?  You aren't someone who believes in hard evidence, if you are told something is a fact then you'll always say it's "just a theory" but theories in science are different than theories in language.  The theory of gravity isn't doubted by anyone, and we know for a fact that evolution exists to the point at which it isn't even debated with the non-believers anymore because there is no point. The age of the earth is NOT if's and maybe's. There is no "surmising" radioactive elements decay at a KNOWN rate of time, and we can see how much something has decayed and realize it has been decaying for the amount of years we know the earth to be is old. PLEASE go watch the newest cosmos, all of them.  I think if you actually consider that none of it is presented as "if's and maybe's" then you might actually learn for once in your life. You've closed your eyes to learning and plugged your ears with your fingers saying "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when it comes to anything new that wasn't written down in that book. 

The rest of your argument I have no need to comment on because the moment you stated your belief's in the earths age it was over with. Beyond that, even if it is 25,000 years according to whatever "scientific foundations" you are talking about, that is STILL older than what the bible says.  If any part of that bible is wrong, then all of it is wrong, period.
Jump to: