Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 78. (Read 845587 times)

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Sure, things that have a cause have also an effect, the part I'm missing is where it says that EVERYTHING (as you claim) has actually a cause, could you make that clear for me?

is already exist. where I do my đất nước, we've say that they exist

That is circular reasoning, just one way of saying "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible tells me so". Nothing is authenticated by way of circular reasoning.

What does it mean to "believe in the Bible"? You think that it is inerrant, but I think it has some wisdom; you think that it is Holy, but I think it is full of Holes. The Jesus Seminar is an adequate source for determining what passages in the Bible are authentic to Jesus. Your opinion of the Bible is not made valid by referring to a Holy Spirit, in fact you freely admit that man commits errors, so why is this book an exception? I am not going to believe that it is free from error unless you use reason to refute the deductions of these scholars. I simply do not believe in a dogma without sufficient proof. If you search for truth using reason then you can easily deduce that Jesus did not say all that is attributed to him.

God exists, there is so much evidence in the world that God exists

God exists in each of us. We will worship God and all good things will come to us

Plainly I was just answering questions by other promoters of religion or politics in this thread. If there is any post herein, where I started a religious talk, it was by accident or mistake. My goal is science oriented for this thread.

Some people judge some things as authentic. Regarding the Bible, the answer to authentication is Holy Spirit. If it was not supposed to be in the Bible, it would have been taken out. The Holy Spirit would have seen to it.

However, if you want it out, who cares? You don't believe the Bible, anyway.

That passage Mark 14:62 was judged as inauthentic to Jesus by the Jesus Seminar. Plainly you are promoting your own religion in this thread. Jesus taught universal salvation and salvation by works, take a look at these references first, before you try to argue with them.

Actually, at His trial, Jesus said, "I am." Jesus answered this when the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God. "I am" is the name that God told the Jewish people to call Him by. Jesus repeated it with reference to Himself, right in His trial. Wake up and read the Bible, and think about what you read.

Do you think that maybe you should start a religion topic?

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.26060980

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

if scientifically God is not visible ,,, the wind we can not see ,, but I believe that God exists

While some of what you said is clear, the combination of cause and effect, entropy, and complexity, show that the universe can't exist without some Great Power that fits the definition of "God." This is not to say that God is the God of the Bible or the Koran or any other religion. While science might be able to determine which if any of the religious books talks about the real God, the thing that this topic is looking for is the scientific (not religious) proof for the existence of God.

Why should there be such doubt, such confusion, about the existence of God? For thousands of years, people have debated whether God exists. Most conclude that it cannot be proven one way or the other. It is surmised that the correct answer lies in the area of abstract philosophy and the metaphysical. And guess what? Nothing will change, because we can't prove anything. So just stop thinking about it, and live a good life.

You forget the part that God upholding His honor and His Name is the thing that keeps mankind in existence. This is the reason why your "sick" really is health for us.

Science of itself is not a religion. But when people believe that science theory is fact, they have turned science into a religion for themselves. Why? Because all science theory can have opposing science theory if only some scientist would make the opposing theory. This is especially true now that we have Quantum Mechanics (which is also a theory). This makes science theory to be in the unknown classification regarding whether it is fact or not. Anybody who believes an unknown to be fact, essentially has a religion going for himself.

Have you looked at what the religious brethren say, and those to whom they say it? Mostly they talk to average people with the idea of salvation. But when you look at what the scientists who investigate the Bible say, they have all kinds of understandings that are far beyond the science of this world, and often very different than what the people teachers say.

You are just another religions science person, turning science into a religion for yourself, because you don't want to look at reality.

Any argument that I have lost is in the political science realms, where I don't really like going. That means that I can be out-talked with words rather than hard science facts, because that is what political science is about.

Now get out of political science and religion, and get into real science. Prove or disprove the existence of God, or start a religious topic, since all you seem to want to do is talk religion.