Pages:
Author

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 80. (Read 845587 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 23, 2017, 12:55:54 AM
assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.

You just assume all equations can be proven.  I agree that assumption cannot be proven.

Therefore your conclusion that a god exists is just an assumption. 

Cool

Bravo! An A+ in political science for you. More and more political science from you is all we need. The more you blab, the more you show that you are stupidity's excuse for existence.

 Cool

All your proof is circular reasoning that when applied to something else can prove something else.

Most of your talk is political science blabbing, since you can't use any factual science to show that cause and effect, entropy, and complexity don't prove the existence of God.

Cool

The factual science that doesn't say everything has a cause? In what science does it say that everything has a cause?

All science shows it. It doesn't have to be said. The greater the scientist, the more he/she uses cause and effect.

Cool

Name one science that says or shows that everything has a cause and I will agree with you even though it wont prove god.

All the sciences shows that everything has a cause. Perhaps few say it.

Cool
member
Activity: 280
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:29:30 PM
As you say, we don't have evidence of any thing that can make the complexity of the universe. That leaves room for God, only. God, not being a thing, or anything, has made the universe.
member
Activity: 178
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:29:10 PM
Mediumship can be produced and observed under conditions of experimental control, see Cunningham's paper "The content source problem in modern mediumship research".
member
Activity: 280
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:28:50 PM
Chopra is not clueless about science since according to Hameroff his view is the right one!
member
Activity: 266
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:28:31 PM
The criticism of Penrose/Hameroff's theory is outdated, more recent papers provide new evidence.
member
Activity: 168
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:28:09 PM
Their theory is the best one on the market, it helps explain the clever behavior of paramecium.
member
Activity: 210
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
Edit: Ah, Hameroff co-wrote the papers regarding the Orch-OR model of consciousness, with Roger Penrose. I've read a little into this hypothesis, and it is very interesting to say the least. But it is not conclusive evidence for any sort of consciousness controlled by quantum computation, their ideas have a lot of criticism.
member
Activity: 224
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:27:28 PM
''We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe.'' You are right badecker we don't, why do you claim you do then?
member
Activity: 266
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:27:07 PM
We have no evidence of anything that can make the complexity and size of the universe. Whatever could do the making, would fit the general description and definition of God. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to make something like the universe with all its "furnishings."
member
Activity: 225
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:26:47 PM
If only that was so - we wouldn't have 400+ pages in this thread.
member
Activity: 266
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:26:28 PM
Whatever God is, the fact that the universe exists proves that God exists.
member
Activity: 308
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:25:40 PM
I certainly agree that god can be thought of as a hypothesis that explains important issues about metaphysics and the origin of life. Except that it's a terribly weak hypothesis with no evidence.
newbie
Activity: 187
Merit: 0
December 22, 2017, 03:25:22 PM
I have pointed out some major problems in the Bible; I recommend that truth-seekers read the Phoenix Journals since they explain how the truth in the Bible has been modified; a seeker must learn about the omissions.
newbie
Activity: 132
Merit: 0
December 22, 2017, 03:25:04 PM
I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. [6.2.12]
member
Activity: 157
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:24:47 PM
The active intellect works on the passive intellect which somehow shadows what the former is doing and helps us as a medium. [6.1.22]
member
Activity: 294
Merit: 11
December 22, 2017, 03:24:28 PM
Consciousness is connected with one unity. A machine is composed of parts. [6.1.21]
member
Activity: 294
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:24:11 PM
The brain is a computing machine connected with a spirit. [6.1.19]
member
Activity: 294
Merit: 10
December 22, 2017, 03:23:51 PM
GOD could be thought of as a hypothesis which can solve important issues like the Origin of Life and many other mysteries. According to the scientific digest "A Lazy Layman's Guide to Quantum Mechanics", science has shown that there is something very mysterious at the origin of time and space. The cutting edge science papers from Stuart Hammeroff and Deepak Chopra explain the quantum origin of mind and contain some of the latest knowledge.
member
Activity: 294
Merit: 12
December 22, 2017, 03:23:32 PM
I am an atheist myself, as I have not seen any compelling evidence for the existence of a god-entity/creator. If such evidence were to emerge, I would be happy to change my stance based on that evidence. Until then, I treat the existence of a god/creator as I would Russell's Teapot, or an invisible pink unicorn.
member
Activity: 280
Merit: 11
December 22, 2017, 03:23:15 PM
If someone does wish to claim such a thing, I would ask that they provide irrefutable evidence in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers, published in a reasonably reputable scientific journal (preferably in an academic journal, concerning physics, biology or chemistry).
Pages:
Jump to: